memory_restore

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

The description reveals that the tool clears valid_to/tx_expired and restores content, and returns flags. It does not mention any destructive side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. With no annotations beyond title, the description provides moderate behavioral context but lacks depth.

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?

The description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with 'Bring a memory back', and structured to explain two operations clearly. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains the tool's behavior and return flags, compensating for the lack of output schema. It addresses the two main use cases but could clarify whether the id must belong to a currently soft-forgotten or condensed memory.

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 description restates the schema's parameter description without adding new meaning. The schema already covers the parameter purpose adequately, so the description offers no additional semantic value.

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 tool restores a memory, specifying two distinct actions: un-tombstoning a soft-forgotten memory and/or restoring condensed content. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like memory_forget and memory_condense.

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 description explains when to use the tool (on soft-forgotten or condensed memories) and implies it is the inverse of memory_forget with hard:false and memory_condense. However, it does not explicitly exclude other states or provide alternative tool names for different scenarios.

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