restore expense

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so this is a write operation, but the description adds valuable behavior: 'Refuses intervening edits; repeats are no-ops.' This discloses idempotency and failure conditions. It also adds cost and authentication context ('$0; API key required'). No contradictions with annotations. The description goes beyond the structured fields and provides useful operational details.

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 extremely efficient: three short sentences that front-load the purpose, then requirements, then behavioral details. No wasted words. It is structured with the most critical information first, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, required parameters, key behaviors, and auth/cost. It lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and does not explain parameter semantics, but the output schema exists and would cover return values. For a tool that is part of a large family of restore_* operations, missing when-to-use guidance is a notable gap, making it adequate but not complete.

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 only 33% (only idempotency_key has a description). The description merely repeats that restore_id and request_id are required, without explaining what they represent or how they relate to the restore operation. It does not clarify the meaning of 'restore_id' or 'request_id' or how they differ. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not add substantive parameter semantics.

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 specific action and object: 'Restore an archive or normalization receipt.' This clearly indicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from other restore_* tools that restore events or trips. It could be slightly more explicit about the expense context, but the tool name 'restore_expense' and the mention of 'receipt' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many restore_* siblings. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The statement 'Requires restore_id and request_id' is a parameter requirement, not usage context. Given the large sibling set (restore_cleanup, restore_event, restore_trip, etc.), this is a significant gap.

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