restore_actor_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful semantics beyond them: idempotency detail ('restoring twice... re-applies the same values both times'), conditional restore scope ('transform and nothing else'), and the return shape. It still does not explicitly say it overwrites current actor values, but with destructiveHint already present this is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and key matching; the remaining sentences cover idempotency, scope caveat, and return shape with no filler. Every sentence provides operational value.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite (serialize first), key matching, idempotent behavior, conditional restore scope, and return fields. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single parameter is thoroughly documented as the stable_key from serialize time (or actor_name). The description's 'SAME key it was saved under' reinforces the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Restore the transform + properties') and ties it to the inverse sibling by naming 'a previous serialize_actor_state'. The 'SAME key' qualifier makes the pairing unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from other actor-state tools.

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 context: this is the inverse of serialize_actor_state and must be called with the same key previously used. It explains the conditional effect when property_names was omitted, but does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives beyond the serialize tool.

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