Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and readOnly=false. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the human-approval gate, the mandatory confirm flag, and that the call is not retried (reinforcing non-idempotency). It stops short of explaining exactly what state change occurs or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the critical precondition and a compact endpoint reference. No filler, and the safety-critical requirement is not buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive fiscal operation with no output schema, the definition covers the key prerequisites (cancelled state, confirm, user approval) and the endpoint. It omits what the restored document looks like afterward and any dependent effects, a minor gap given annotations already flag destructiveness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the confirm semantics. The description's 'Needs confirm: true' restates schema content rather than adding new parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Restore') and resource (CANCELLED invoice, proforma or notice), including the required precondition that the document be cancelled. An agent can distinguish this from oblio_cancel_document, its inverse sibling, without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear conditions for invocation: the document must be cancelled, confirm must be true, and the user must have approved. It does not explicitly name the alternative (oblio_cancel_document) or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.