restore_meal

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), which means the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'after checking its expected revision' hints at optimistic-concurrency behavior but doesn't explain what happens on mismatch (error? no-op?). It also doesn't clarify whether this is a destructive operation or what state the meal returns to. The revision-check concept adds some value but is under-specified.

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?

A single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and appends the key precondition. Efficient, though it could add a note about revision mismatch behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

There is an output schema, so return-format explanation isn't needed. However, for a mutation tool with no helpful annotations (all false), the description should do more: clarify the optimistic concurrency model, describe what a failed revision check produces, and explain the relationship to soft-delete. The description is adequate for a simple restore but leaves important behavioral questions unanswered given the complexity hinted by revision checking.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions meal_id indirectly (which meal to restore) and expected_revision (via 'checking its expected revision'), but doesn't explain what expected_revision means — e.g., what happens if the current revision differs, or how to determine the correct value. Since there are only 2 params, the description maps to both, but leaves semantics of the revision mechanism unclear.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: "Restore a soft-deleted meal". It's specific about what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like delete_meal or update_meal beyond implying it reverses a deletion, which is fairly clear given the naming.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't mention when restoration is appropriate (e.g., after a soft delete, before a hard purge), nor does it contrast with alternatives like update_meal or delete_meal. The description mentions checking 'expected revision' implying a precondition, but doesn't explain when to use this vs other tools.

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