restore_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the atomicity (all or none, rollback on partial failure), the batch nature, and the return format. While it doesn't mention permissions or side effects on already-unarchived IDs, the core behavior is well covered, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage condition, efficiency note, atomicity, and return format. Zero waste; every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return shape. It even explains the rollback behavior, which is essential for batch operations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 items array and required id are fully documented. The description only restates that IDs are for archived memories, adding little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (batch un-archive) and resource (memories), with a clear condition for use (2+ confirmed archived memories). It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'forget(restore=true)' by name, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you have 2 or more confirmed archived memories to un-archive at once') and when not to (implies using forget(restore=true) for single/fewer). The efficiency rationale and the alternative are named directly, leaving no inference needed.

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