Quote application data restore

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false (a non-destructive mutation), but the description goes well beyond by explaining it doesn't charge or restore, that for API keys it requires paid operations, applications:restore, spend caps, and a fresh idempotencyKey. These are exactly the behavioral constraints annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, then the negative scope, then prerequisites, then auth requirements. Dense but each sentence carries distinct value. Slightly crowded for a single paragraph but no filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description wisely names quote.total_charged and available balance as the fields to surface, compensating for the missing return schema. It covers prerequisites, auth gating, and idempotency flow. Minor gap: it doesn't state quote lifetime despite 'short-lived'.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including patterns, UUID formats, and revision semantics. The description adds the critical coupling that the same idempotencyKey must be used for the subsequent restore call, which is genuinely useful but limited beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb (create a quote) and resource (application restore selection), and its scope is distinct from siblings like restore_application_data (which acts) and get_application_data_restore (which reads). The description immediately clarifies this does NOT charge or restore, sharply separating it from the action sibling.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites (read get_application_installation and list_application_restore_points first), the alternative flow (the idempotencyKey must be reused for restore_application_data), and the required disclosure step (quote.total_charged and available balance to the user). This is a full when/how-to-use contract.

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