restore_priority

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond the missing annotations by stating the action (restore priority) and safety constraint (no auto-detect, required PID). It discloses that it returns a confirmation, though lacks detail on errors or side effects.

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?

Description is brief with only three sentences covering purpose, usage, and parameter details. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description provides a minimal return statement. However, the tool's simplicity and context from sibling tools make it adequately complete for an agent to understand and use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains the parameter 'target_pid' as the process ID to restore, emphasizing it is required and that auto-detect is disabled for safety, adding meaning beyond the integer type in 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?

Description clearly states it restores a throttled process to normal CPU priority, using the verb 'restore' and specifying 'normal CPU priority'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'throttle_process' and 'prioritize_process' by focusing on undoing a throttle.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use this tool: to undo a throttle/deprioritize if the wrong process was throttled or after a render finishes. This provides clear context and helps the agent decide between this and similar tools like 'prioritize_process'.

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