Return drawn entries to a roll table

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

The description adds behavioral meaning beyond the annotations by specifying that every previously drawn entry is returned to the drawable pool and that the table itself is not replaced. It complements destructiveHint and idempotentHint without contradicting them, though it does not discuss irreversibility or return value.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the action is stated first and the purpose/clarifying consequence follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description conveys the state change and intended outcome completely. It is slightly short on usage context around what the tool returns or how it relates to draw-roll-table, but these are minor for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents tableId with 100% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 concrete action ('Return every drawn entry') tied to a clear resource (roll table) and explains the resulting state ('so all entries can be drawn again'). This differentiates it from siblings like draw-roll-table, get-roll-table, and update-roll-table.

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 intended use is implied: call this after draws when the table's full pool should be available again. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer the decision context from the tool name and siblings.

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