restore_pii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the vault is maintained server-side and originals never reach the AI client, which is important security context. However, it omits behavior such as vault expiry, required permissions, error handling, or whether restored values can be re-redacted.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary action and prerequisite are front-loaded, and the security context follows naturally.

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?

Covers the core mechanism and a key privacy property, but for a PII-restoration tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should also clarify the return value (presumably restored text), failure modes such as expired vaults, and any authorization requirements.

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 the schema already documents vaultId, sanitized, and strategy in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that vaultId comes from redact_pii; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('PII placeholders in text'), and explicitly connects to the sibling tool redact_pii that creates the vault. An agent can distinguish this from redaction and other PII tools without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite: a vault session created by redact_pii. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the context for invocation is clear and actionable.

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