aureon_run_drift_restore_demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real side effects by naming the sequence (seeds state, deliberately breaks a rule, then restores it), which tells the agent this mutates data rather than merely observes. However, it says nothing about reversibility, whether it touches shared/production state, auth requirements, or idempotency — all material for a demo that writes data.

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 line with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the demo name before the step detail. The arrow notation compresses the sequence efficiently.

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 zero-param, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does operationally but omits what the agent gets back and any safety/auth framing. It is adequate to trigger the call, but thin for understanding consequences.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; the parenthetical steps describe internal behavior rather than inputs.

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?

Specific verb ('Run') plus the named demo and its three internal steps (seed book, break rule, manual restore) make the action unambiguous. It is implicitly distinguishable from the 'get_*_flow' siblings, but the description never names aureon_get_drift_restore_flow, so the contrast is left to the reader.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'demo' — an agent can infer this is a scripted end-to-end demo rather than a production operation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over aureon_get_drift_restore_flow (which presumably describes the same flow without executing it) and no prerequisites.

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