pbi_recover_from_journal

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature, conflict handling, byte-by-byte verification, and recreation of parent directories. It also explains the `recovery_conflict` rejection and `force_conflict` override, providing rich behavioral details beyond what any annotation could.

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 concise yet comprehensive. Each sentence adds valuable information: destructive warning, preview behavior, states, conflict handling, verification, and directory recreation. The front-loaded 'DESTRUCTIVA' immediately signals the most important trait. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: safety (destructive), preview, conflict states, force behavior, and post-restoration verification. With an output schema present, the lack of return format details is acceptable. The description is fully self-sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, but the description adds meaning for key parameters: it explains that `confirm` toggles between preview and actual restoration, and `force_conflict` overrides conflicts. `journal` is self-evident from context. Only `request_id` is not explicitly described, but the overall compensation is strong.

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 'restaura' (restore) with a clear resource ('originales guardados en un journal'), and explicitly labels the operation as DESTRUCTIVA. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_inspect_journal (inspect) and pbi_purge_backups (purge), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: without `confirm` it returns a preview, and with `confirm` it performs restoration. It also explains when `force_conflict` is relevant. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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