legal_restore_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the document is reverted and generation stops, plus a real prerequisite ('Requires cvrt-legal 0.7.0+'). However it omits permission requirements, whether the revert is reversible, and what happens to the document body — key gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences, action and effect front-loaded, with the version prerequisite trailing. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and a version prerequisite. It stops short of usage context and permission/reversibility details, leaving the agent partially equipped for a state-changing operation.

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%, so both 'site' and 'doc' (with its enum and BFSG note) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (restore) and resource (a generated document) with a clear scope: reverting to the pre-generator state and halting generation. It implicitly contrasts with legal_put_generator but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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 phrase 'stop generating it' implies the tool is for undoing/opting out of generator output, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings like legal_put_generator or legal_render_document. Usage is left to inference.

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