Restore original values into a file

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond annotations: 'The restored file is written to the Stript output folder and its content never appears in the chat', 'returns replacement counts and the output path only', and 'Restoring is free'. These specifics about output location, output format, and cost are valuable context not provided by the annotations.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage instruction, output behavior, and cost. It is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant or verbose language.

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 tool with three parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, how to use it (ask for path), what it returns (counts and path), where output goes, and that it is free. No significant gaps are apparent.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only reinforcing that the path is a file path. It does not elaborate on the 'project' or 'output_filename' parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's purpose: 'restore original values into a file that contains Stript placeholders'. It specifies the resource (file) and the action (restoring), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on file restoration, with the name stript_restore_file and description 'into a file' distinguishing it from stript_restore.

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 gives practical usage guidance: 'Ask the user for the file path, do not ask them to paste file content into the chat' and notes 'Restoring is free, it never consumes an evaluation document.' It does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of stript_restore or other siblings, but the context is clear enough for this file-specific tool.

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