goldhold_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly describes what is restored and the intended session-start context, but it does not disclose whether restoring overwrites any current unsaved state or what the response/payload shape looks like beyond the schema hint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and contents, followed by a direct usage instruction. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 one-optional-parameter restoration tool, the description supplies the essential context: what state is loaded, when to invoke it, and what alternative to avoid. The missing explicit return-value description is partially mitigated by the schema's 'restore payload' wording.

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 100%: context_budget has a clear description ('Max tokens for restore payload'), a default, and a type. The tool description adds no parameter-specific value, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the current working state') and enumerates exact payload contents: checkpoint, focus manifest, asset refs, unresolved items, directives, corrections. It steers away from 'generic search' but does not differentiate from close siblings such as goldhold_resume or goldhold_plan_restore.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('Use at session start') and an explicit alternative to avoid ('instead of generic search'). It is clear for the search-vs-restore decision, but it doesn't address when to prefer other state-related siblings like goldhold_plan_restore or goldhold_resume.

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