Neotoma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a restoration observation with priority 1001, overrides deletion, makes the entity visible again, and is immutable for audit purposes. This covers mutation effects and audit implications, though it omits details like error handling or permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently uses four sentences to cover purpose, mechanism, outcome, and audit trait. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the restoration process, audit implications, and visibility changes. However, it lacks details on error cases, response format, or side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool with 4 parameters.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate parameter information.

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 specific action ('Restore a deleted entity') and the resource ('entity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_entity' or 'retrieve_entity_snapshot'. It explains the outcome ('Entity becomes visible in snapshots and queries again'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 implies usage for restoring deleted entities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_entities' or 'delete_entity'. It mentions 'Immutable restoration for audit', hinting at audit-related contexts, but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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