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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'restore' which implies a state-changing operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the expense is not soft-deleted, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. There is zero waste.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks details about edge cases (e.g., behavior when the expense is not soft-deleted) and does not mention permissions or idempotency. While not incomplete for a trivial operation, it leaves some ambiguity that a more thorough description could resolve.

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% – the id parameter has a description 'Expense ID to restore'. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 a specific resource 'soft-deleted Splitwise expense', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sw_delete_expense (which deletes) and sw_undelete_group (which restores a group, not an expense).

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 the use case: when you have a soft-deleted expense and want to bring it back. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the expense must be in a deleted state) or alternatives (e.g., other restore tools). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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