aureon_restore_objective

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavioral traits: the operation is not always vault-backed, 'staged is never on-chain', and 'vault without verifiedOnChain is submitted, not proven', plus that it returns an ExecutionReceipt. However it omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility, and what side effects occur on-chain, so it is informative but incomplete.

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 definition is short and front-loads the purpose before the settlement semantics. It is somewhat telegraphic and jargon-heavy ('staged', 'submitted, not proven'), which slightly hurts readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return and side effects more fully. It names ExecutionReceipt but does not describe its contents, and it leaves permission and on-chain effect details unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents objectiveId. The description adds no format, ID source, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Run restorative execution for an objective') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('outside policy'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as aureon_run_execution, aureon_confirm_restoration, or aureon_propose_restoration.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to the sibling restoration tools (propose/confirm/get_restore_plan) that an agent would need to sequence correctly. The 'outside policy' qualifier implies a context but never states the precondition for choosing this tool over aureon_run_execution.

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