Bring a lapsed item back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It opens with 'MUTATING TOOL' and discloses a subtle side effect: 'This call may first persist lazy expiry/drip housekeeping (see README) even if you only meant to read.' It also notes the clock reset, which is behavioral. It could be more comprehensive, but the disclosed side effects are significant and well-stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'MUTATING TOOL'. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: state the action, specify applicable conditions and alternative, and disclose side effects. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's mutation side effects and conditional applicability, the description covers the key operational context: what it does, when it works, alternative for other states, and a warning about housekeeping writes. It doesn't mention return values, but no output schema exists, so that's not required. It could mention the `undo` capability as a safety net, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; the schema already explains `ids` (from today/list_layer output, max 25) and `actorClaim` (attribution claim, not proof of consent). The description's mention of 'resetting their 24-hour clock' indirectly supports `ids`, but no extra value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Move one or more `lapsed` items back to `pending`, resetting their 24-hour clock', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from sibling `undo` by specifying that it only works on `lapsed` items, not `kept`/`watching` items.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'Only works on items currently `lapsed`'. It also gives an explicit alternative: 'for `kept`/`watching` items that need reverting, use `undo` instead'. This fully covers usage guidance.

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