sage_reinstate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses prerequisites (app-v17 activation) and authorization differences. It does not contradict annotations. It adds behavioral context about the two-phase challenge and the committed state.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action and then adding prerequisites. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the tool's effect (return to committed). It could elaborate on side effects or post-conditions, but it covers the key actions and authorization. Adequate for the complexity.

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% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for 'reason' it says 'Optional audit note' which is already in schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'withdraw or resolve' and the resource 'open two-phase challenge' and 'return the memory to committed'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the specific action of reinstating a challenged memory, which is unique among the provided siblings.

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 explicit context on when to use (withdraw or resolve a challenge) and who can use it (original challenger always, others need 'domain modify verb'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools among the siblings.

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