restore event

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: it refuses when edits have intervened, repeats are idempotent, it costs $0, and an API key is required. These details add value the annotations alone do not provide.

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: scope, required inputs, behavioral edge cases, and authorization/cost are all covered in three short sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The description covers required inputs, key behavioral edge cases, and auth/cost context. The phrase 'archive or normalization receipt' could be clearer, but overall the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 low (33%), and the description only says that restore_id and request_id are required without explaining what each identifier means or how they relate. The idempotency_key is documented as an alias in the schema, but the two key parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 opens with a concrete verb and object ('Restore an archive or normalization receipt') and the title identifies the resource as event-related. It is clear about the action but does not explicitly differentiate restore_event from sibling tools like restore_expense, restore_trip, or restore_cleanup.

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 states required parameters and important invocation constraints such as 'Refuses intervening edits; repeats are no-ops.' However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving sibling selection mostly to inference from the tool name.

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