sw_undelete_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool restores soft-deleted expenses, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details about permissions, error conditions, idempotency, or what happens if the expense is not already soft-deleted, which would be valuable for a restore operation.

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 description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Restore' and includes only essential information. There is no redundancy or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core purpose but omits details about return values, failure behavior, or prerequisites beyond the 'soft-deleted' state. Given no annotations, more contextual information would improve completeness, but the description is not critically incomplete.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage) with a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'restore' and specifies the resource as a 'soft-deleted Splitwise expense,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sw_undelete_group and sw_delete_expense. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when a Splitwise expense has been soft-deleted and needs to be recovered. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource specificity (expense vs. group) differentiates it from sibling sw_undelete_group, providing clear contextual guidance.

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