memwal_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (counts, truncated status) and pagination behavior (call again with higher limit), but it does not state whether the operation is destructive (e.g., clearing existing index), any permission requirements, or potential side effects. This is significant for a mutation tool, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second conveying return/pagination info. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place.

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 covers the purpose, return behavior, and pagination handling, which is decent for a tool with no output schema. However, it lacks detail on the mutation behavior (e.g., whether it replaces/merges the index), the meaning of 'counts', and error conditions. Given the tool's mutation nature and missing annotations, a more comprehensive description would be needed for a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely references 'limit' in the context of pagination ('call again with a higher limit'), but it does not explain what 'namespace' means or the exact semantics of either parameter. This is insufficient for a tool with two parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-index') with a clear resource ('a namespace') and source/destination ('from Walrus blobs back into the relayer's search index'). It distinctly separates itself from sibling tools like memwal_recall or memwal_remember by focusing on index restoration.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (restoring/re-indexing a namespace), and the truncation note ('call again with a higher limit when truncated=true') gives practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops 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.