Goals Restore Goal

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already tell the agent this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the important warning 'This may create or update Monarch data', which is useful because it signals that the operation can have broader data-changing effects than just flipping a flag. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it could disclose more about what data gets created or updated.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the warning about data mutation follows immediately. It is concise, though it could arguably include more context without becoming bloated.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, no description of return values, and a critical required parameter (goal_id) that is undocumented, this is thin. The openWorldHint=true annotation suggests the operation may have side effects beyond the immediate goal, and the description's warning hints at this but doesn't elaborate. An agent would struggle to know what exactly happens on restore, what the expected outcome is, or what errors might occur.

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 67%: goal_id has no description, while fields and output_mode have descriptions. The description does not explain what goal_id means or how to obtain it, and doesn't clarify the semantics of restoring (e.g., whether it recreates a deleted goal or unarchives it). Since the critical required parameter goal_id lacks any description, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 says 'Restore goal' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action of restoring a previously deleted or archived goal. It distinguishes from siblings like goals_archive_goal, goals_delete_goal, and goals_create_goal by implying a restoration operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't explain what state a goal must be in (deleted, archived) for restoration, or how it relates to goals_reactivate_category (a sibling that does a similar restore/activate for categories). The context of when restoration is appropriate is entirely left to inference.

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