restore_memory

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it is mutating (writes to disk, appends to timeline), tokens are single-use and tree-scoped, failure modes are non-destructive (spent/foreign token fails without changing anything), and it returns an object with address, path, and revision id. This far exceeds the minimal annotation information.

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 front-loaded with the key action ('MUTATING: undo a trash_memory call') and then provides focused, necessary details in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter explanations are concise yet comprehensive.

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 restore operation with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what it does, side effects, failure modes, parameter semantics, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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?

While the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: restore_token must be the exact token from a prior trash_memory call, and project_path carries a special omission rule when the server is pinned. This clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'undo a trash_memory call by restoring one curated memory file from its restore token.' It names the exact resource (curated memory file) and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the inverse of trash_memory.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as undoing a trash_memory call, making the trigger condition clear. It also provides guidance on when to omit project_path (pinned server case) and notes that there is no way to browse trash from MCP, helping the agent decide whether this is the right tool.

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