travaso_ripristina

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a mutating action (refill from archive) and requires explicit user request, but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing data. The required 'conferma' parameter is not mentioned as a safety gate, leaving the agent unaware of the confirmation requirement.

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, front-loaded with the action, and has no filler. It earns its place by stating the core purpose and a key usage constraint. Could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 mutating tool with a confirmation parameter and no annotations or output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits the confirmation parameter's role, fails to describe the archive source or any data loss implications, and provides no return value expectations. An agent lacks enough context to call it safely and correctly.

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. It fails to mention the 'conferma' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the boolean type and the phrase 'esplicita richiesta'. This is insufficient for a single required parameter that likely gates a destructive action.

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 states a specific action ('Riempie di nuovo il serbatoio dall'archivio') with a clear resource and verb. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like travaso_assorbi or travaso_archivio, but the verb 'ripristina' and the phrase 'dall'archivio' imply a restore/refill action that is distinct enough from the other names.

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 a single usage condition ('Solo su richiesta esplicita dell'utente'), which tells the agent when not to call it. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions or alternatives. This is minimal but not comparative.

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