Reset the routine to defaults

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

The description says it 'Overwrites any customisation,' which is a destructive effect, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the safety profile an agent would rely on from annotations.

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 front-loaded with the action and includes a useful enumeration of the default routine. The list is somewhat long but gives concrete meaning to 'default,' so it mostly 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description states the effect and overwrite behavior clearly. It could say more about when to prefer update_routine, but the schema and annotations cover most other structural needs.

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 single optional timezone parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither helps nor harms beyond the baseline.

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 specific verb, 'Restore,' and a specific resource, the built-in default routine, then enumerates exactly what that default contains. An agent can distinguish it from update_routine or get_routine without inspecting schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it restores defaults and overwrites customisation, but it does not explicitly contrast this with update_routine, name alternatives, or state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but inferred rather than explicit.

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