rememb_restore

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral fact: restores are non-destructive because they append a new head revision rather than rewriting history. It stops short of error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens when version points at a non-existent revision.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action and its two modes come first, and the non-destructive guarantee follows immediately — exactly the front-loading an agent needs.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both modes, and the key safety property. It leaves gaps around failure behavior and what a restore returns, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains entry_id, store, and the optional version parameter, so the description need not duplicate it. The description restates the dual version behavior, which reinforces but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Restore a soft-deleted entry') and adds a second distinct mode ('restore a specific prior version as the new current head'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling such as rememb_versions or rememb_edit as the alternative for a non-restore path, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: restoring deleted entries or rolling back to a prior version. There is no explicit 'use this instead of rememb_edit when…' guidance, and no mention of what to do if the entry is not soft-deleted or the version does not exist.

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