goldhold_plan_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does list the affected components, which is helpful, but it does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether it overwrites current working state, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what prerequisites exist. For a 'restore' action, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compactly appended. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover invocation context, parameter meaning, and return/behavior expectations. It covers when to use it and the components involved, but omits parameter semantics, return value shape, and behavioral caveats. An agent may still be uncertain how to correctly populate context_budget or what the restore result looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explain plan_slug, context_budget, or include_closed at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but context_budget in particular has unclear semantics and is left completely undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Restore a plan's working state,' and enumerates exactly what is restored (manifest, checkpoint, tasks, assets, corrections). It also distinguishes itself from search by saying to use it 'instead of search,' so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like goldhold_search without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit usage context: 'Use at session start instead of search.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool and directly names an alternative to avoid, which is exactly the guidance needed for a session-start restoration tool.

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