memo_unforget

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns whether a matching forgotten record was restored. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful return value context.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states core purpose, second gives technical idempotency and format, third provides usage guidance. 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?

Given a single parameter and output schema present, the description covers effect, input format, return value, and usage context. It lacks detail on error cases (e.g., no match) but is sufficient for typical use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by stating 'Accepts a full id or unique prefix' and mentions the return value indicating restoration. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 clearly states the tool restores a previously forgotten memory, using specific verb 'restore' and resource 'forgotten memory'. It distinguishes from sibling 'memo_forget' which does the opposite.

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 explicit context on when to use: 'Use after deciding a memory should participate in search and recall again.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling 'memo_forget' is implied.

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