aureon_confirm_restoration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool checks the receipt and does not sign or broadcast, which prevents an agent from mistaking it for an execution tool. It still omits auth/session requirements, idempotency, and the precise side effect of 'store' in this context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints. It is efficient and avoids repetition, though the first sentence is grammatically awkward and slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 two-parameter confirmation/store tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives important behavioral limits and the receipt-checking action. It still leaves the return behavior, permissions, and idempotency unclear, which would help an agent invoke and interpret the result more reliably.

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 objectiveId and transactionHash are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action on a specific resource: store a vault rebalance that the session wallet already broadcast, plus receipt checking. It distinguishes itself from execute/propose siblings by saying it does not sign or broadcast. The only weakness is that it says 'vault rebalance' rather than 'restoration,' which slightly blurs alignment with the tool name and sibling confirm/restore tools.

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 'session wallet already broadcast' implies this is used after an external wallet broadcast, and 'Does not sign or broadcast' rules out execution use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as aureon_propose_restoration or explain when-not to use this versus other confirmation tools.

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