Restore Skipped Matches

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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: closed postings cannot be restored and the response reports that, nothing is sent to any employer, nothing is spent, and the action is reversible via getmattered_skip_matches. This complements idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false with concrete consequence detail.

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?

Four short sentences in a front-loaded sequence: effect, input, constraints/safety, exclusion, next step. Nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: source of ids, batch limit, failure case, side effects, reversibility, and sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the array of ids with the same '1 to 25' bound and the getmattered_get_matches source, so the description largely restates it. No additional format or error-handling semantics for individual ids are given.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Bring back job matches the user skipped') with an explicit outcome ('show in the user's matches again'). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling getmattered_skip_matches and from getmattered_save_matches, which it names.

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?

States input provenance ('job_match_ids from getmattered_get_matches'), the allowed batch size (1 to 25), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it to save a match for later; use getmattered_save_matches'), and a follow-up step ('Next: getmattered_get_matches'). No inference needed.

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