restore trip

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior: it refuses intervening edits and treats repeats as no-ops, which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also notes the API key requirement and cost. This adds meaningful context that the annotations do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and required parameters. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it packs multiple ideas into a short string.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers some essentials (requirements, idempotency, refusal behavior) but leaves ambiguities: what counts as an 'intervening edit'? What exactly does 'archive or normalization receipt' mean? It also fails to explain when to use this tool over sibling restore tools. These gaps make it only partially 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 description coverage is only 33% (idempotency_key has a description), but the description merely lists that restore_id and request_id are required without explaining their semantics or format. It does not compensate for the low coverage, and it doesn't clarify how idempotency_key relates to request_id beyond the schema's alias note. The description adds almost no parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific action ('Restore') and targets 'an archive or normalization receipt', which is clear enough for a restore operation. However, it doesn't tie the purpose to the 'trip' resource implied by the name, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling restore tools like restore_event or restore_expense, so it's not fully distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as restore_cleanup, restore_event, or restore_expense. The description mentions 'Refuses intervening edits' and 'repeats are no-ops' but these are behavioral traits, not usage context. It doesn't explain the scenario that calls for this specific restore operation.

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