restore_missing_pdf_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses fail-closed all-or-nothing semantics, byte-for-byte verification before any write, an explicit guarantee that Markdown and figure DB rows are untouched, and that dry_run defaults to true. It omits permission/auth requirements and rollback behavior on mid-batch failure, keeping it below 5.

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 core semantics (fail-closed, no side effects) are front-loaded in two tight sentences, followed by a compact Args block that earns its space given 0% schema coverage. The prose is slightly longer than strictly necessary, preventing a 5.

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 no-annotation write tool with an output schema, the definition covers failure semantics, side-effect guarantees, limits/defaults, and the fallback path. Return-value details are rightly omitted since an output schema exists. Only auth/permission and partial-failure recovery details are 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all five parameters with real semantics: the ≤20 cap on note_paths, the 1–20 ranges for both limits, dry_run's validate-without-writing meaning, and that source_pdfs must align positionally with note_paths and is only for a verified copy. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. behavior if source_pdfs length mismatches note_paths).

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Restore missing legacy embedded-image files from their original PDFs') and immediately scopes it to legacy PDF-sourced images, which is enough to separate it from generic figure tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like reconcile_figures, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the fail-closed explanation and the dry_run default, telling the agent this is a validate-then-write workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over reconcile_figures or backfill_figure_text, nor any preconditions for invoking it, so the when-to-use guidance is only inferred.

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