restore_execution

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'restores' an execution, implying a state mutation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns. Every element is informative, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return fields. However, it lacks information about error conditions, state prerequisites, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether the execution must be inactive). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the absence of annotations still leaves contextual gaps.

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?

The schema provides only the type 'string' for execution_rid with no description. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('RID of the execution to restore') and providing a concrete example ('1-ABC'). For a single parameter with zero schema coverage, this fully clarifies the expected input.

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 'Restore a previous execution to continue working with it,' which clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (execution). This is distinct from sibling tools like create_execution or start_execution, so the purpose is 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 phrase 'to continue working with it' implies the tool is used when resuming a prior execution, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. This is implied usage rather than explicit decision support.

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