memcp_restore

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

With no annotations, the description discloses decompression and re-insertion behavior. It does not cover permissions, conflicts, or error cases, which limits transparency.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by brief implementation details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., item must be archived), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a two-parameter tool.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the bare schema: 'name' is identified as context name or insight ID, and 'item_type' explains the allowed values and 'auto' behavior. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it restores archived contexts or insights, using specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from sibling tools like memcp_forget or memcp_recall that handle other operations.

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 specifies the tool is for restoring archived items, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for non-archived items.

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