Restore UCS

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses refusal conditions (CMDACTIVE, unknown name), the underlying live vs headless mechanics, and that tool coordinates stay WCS. That is substantive behavioral context that isn't in the structured fields.

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?

It is short, but the telegraphic fragment style ("Live:", "Headless:", "Refusal:", "Pack: settings · lean: no.") is not front-loaded and is hard to parse; the final "Pack/lean" clause is cryptic and adds little.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the behavioral notes cover the main edge cases. However, the absence of any when-to-use framing relative to `ucs_set`/`ucs_list` leaves the definition short of complete for an agent choosing an action.

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 coverage is 100% and the `name` param is already documented as "A name from ucs_list, or `world`". The description adds marginal meaning by explaining what `world` does and how unknown names are handled, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 never states plainly that it restores a named UCS; it opens with implementation detail ("Live: `ActiveUCS`...") and relies on the name/title to convey purpose. The mechanism and the `world` special-case make the intent inferable, but an agent gets no clean verb+resource statement up front.

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?

It gives partial conditions: `world` is refused while a command is active, and unknown names are refused with a list of saved ones. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over `ucs_set` or `ucs_list`, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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