Restore deleted transactions

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: ZenMoney cannot undelete in place, restored items come back as copies with new ids, and already-restored items are skipped. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and discloses the surprising id-changing side effect an agent would otherwise not anticipate.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action, then appends the lookup hint and the key behavioral caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers the mutation, its idempotency, and the new-id caveat, which is the critical surprise. It does not describe the return payload or partial-failure behavior, but with no output schema and a single-parameter surface, the description is nearly sufficient.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries some burden. It implies the transactions to restore and how to obtain their ids, but never states that 'ids' is an array of up to 100 transaction identifiers, leaving the shape to the schema alone.

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+resource ('Bring back deleted transactions') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_transactions and list_transactions. An agent can tell exactly what this does 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?

Names the precondition and the alternative for locating inputs ('find them with list_transactions include_deleted=true'), which is actionable routing guidance. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the usage context is clear.

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