veto_session_restore

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state but is non-destructive. The description explains what is restored (working context, not timeline) but does not disclose side effects such as recording active_client or whether restoring overwrites current session state. Adequate against annotation coverage but not rich.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, ID lookup aid, and sibling disambiguation. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 two-parameter restore tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, lookup path, and an alternative. The only gap is the undisclosed side effect of setting active_client, which lives in the schema but is not reinforced behaviorally.

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 100%, so both session_id and the resuming_as enum (with its active_client recording note) are already documented structurally. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no format or default guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (restores) and resource (saved context snapshot of a previous session by ID), plus the intent (resume work where it left off). It explicitly distinguishes itself from veto_sessions_list and veto_session_replay, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names both relevant alternatives with the condition that selects each: veto_sessions_list to find IDs, and veto_session_replay for the chronological event timeline instead of working context. Explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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