Neotoma

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides good behavioral context: it discloses that restoration creates an observation with priority 1001, is immutable for audit, and makes the relationship visible again. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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 purpose, followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: the restoration mechanism, visibility impact, and audit trait. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the restoration mechanism and audit implications. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, or permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the parameters identify the relationship to restore.

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 relationship') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_relationship' and 'restore_entity'. It specifies the resource (relationship) and the outcome (makes it visible again).

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 relationships but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_relationship' or 'restore_entity'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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