restore cleanup

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that intervening edits are refused and that repeats are no-ops, which is critical for an agent to understand idempotency and conflict handling. It also notes authentication requirements. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by requirements and key behavioral notes. The 'Requires restore_id and request_id' sentence somewhat duplicates the schema, but overall the description is tight and free of unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool, the description covers essential semantics like idempotency, refusal of intervening edits, and authentication, and an output schema exists. However, it does not define what an 'archive or normalization receipt' is, and the lack of parameter semantics leaves gaps that could prevent correct invocation without external context.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain what restore_id and request_id mean, but it merely repeats their names and required status. It does not clarify which ID corresponds to the archive/receipt versus the request, and idempotency_key is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 states a clear verb ('Restore') and a specific resource ('archive or normalization receipt'), which differentiates it from sibling restore tools like restore_event and restore_expense. It is not a tautology condition, but the tool name 'cleanup' is left undefined, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

The description implies usage by naming the resource type and states prerequisites ('Requires restore_id and request_id'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names are provided.

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