restore

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

The description reveals the core behavior (moving a memory out of the recycle bin) but does not disclose edge cases, side effects, or conditions (e.g., what happens if the memory is not in the bin, or if it already exists). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it provides only the basic action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one simple action and one parameter.

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 simple restore tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary function. However, it omits important context such as the prerequisite (memory must be in recycle bin) and potential error cases, leaving the agent to infer behavioral details.

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?

The input schema defines memory_id as a required string with no description, and the tool description does not mention memory_id at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, and with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanation.

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 action ('Restore'), the object ('a memory'), and the origin ('from the recycle bin'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'forget' or 'remember' and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context: this tool is for restoring memories that are currently in the recycle bin. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is straightforward and sufficient for the intended use case.

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