restore_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or even what 'restoration' entails or what happens to the input data. The mention of 'legacy mode' is opaque without further context.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. It lacks essential details and does not front-load any actionable information.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no param descriptions, and an opaque behavioral contract, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to provide even a baseline understanding of what the tool accomplishes.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (text, mapping, restoration_session, trusted_local_review). The tool name and vague narrative give no clue to their roles.

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 mentions 'restore' and 'opaque session' but does not specify what is restored, what qualifies as opaque, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'prepare_for_external_ai' or 'redact_text'. It is not a complete tautology but is far from a clear action-resource statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'direct mappings require explicit legacy mode' hints at a condition but does not explain when or why to invoke the tool.

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