restore

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

This tool has no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that forgetting is a tombstone and that restoration is always possible, which is useful. It also mentions that `reason` is required and logged, which is a form of audit behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, such as whether restoring a memory resurrects it in full, or any consequences for related data. The 'logged' detail adds some transparency, but the depth is limited.

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?

The description is a short, two-sentence paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Reverse a forgetting decision'). Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and possibility, the second explains the rationale for always being possible and the requirement of `reason`. No fluff.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple restore operation. It explains the core behavior and the logging requirement. However, it does not specify the return value (though there is no output schema, so it might be acceptable), nor does it mention any potential side effects or conditions under which restoration might fail (e.g., if the memory has been permanently purged despite the tombstone note). Given the low complexity (2 params) and no output schema, it is reasonably complete but leaves some gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter guidance. It explains that `reason` is required and logged, which adds meaning to that parameter, but it does not provide any guidance on `memory_id` beyond what the schema gives (title 'Memory Id'). Since 0% coverage, the description should compensate more, but it does somewhat for `reason`.

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?

The description states the tool reverses a forgetting decision, which is a clear verb and resource ('reverse forgetting'). It is distinguished from sibling 'forget' by explicitly positioning itself as the inverse operation, though it does not name the sibling directly. The tombstone vs delete detail adds specificity.

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?

The description clarifies when to use this tool: after a forgetting decision, to reverse it. It notes that it is 'always possible' because forgetting is a tombstone, not a delete, which implies a key context and contrasts with a delete operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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