plan_restore_from_history

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

The description clarifies that this is a planning operation with no direct application of changes, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also identifies the data source as Amazon's change history. It does not contradict annotations, and it reinforces the non-destructive nature implied by destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose, the non-application behavior, and the key parameter semantics. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause adds useful information.

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?

Despite good annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete for safe invocation: one required parameter ('market') is completely undocumented, and the optional 'campaign_ids' is also unexplained. An agent would need additional context to know what values these fields accept, making the overall context insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 gives precise semantics for 'since' (ISO datetime, UTC if no offset), which is valuable because schema description coverage is 0%. However, it leaves 'market' and 'campaign_ids' completely unexplained. Since the schema offers no parameter documentation, the description only partially compensates for the lack of coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('a plan restoring bids and states'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from applying by saying '(not apply)'. It also names the data source ('Amazon's change history'), so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance and separate it from apply_plan and get_change_history.

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 phrase '(not apply)' gives an implied usage boundary: use this tool when you want to construct a plan rather than execute one. However, it does not name the alternative tool explicitly, nor does it state when to prefer this over get_change_history, plan_update, or plan_create. The guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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