Restore a dismissed memory

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

Beyond the annotations' mutation, idempotency, and non-destructive hints, the description explains the observable effect: the item becomes visible again in search and session context. It also discloses that a non-dismissed item produces no change and an explicit response, which is useful behavior for an agent to know.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the effect, edge case, and parameter guidance. No sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter restoration tool with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. It covers purpose, effect, matching requirements, and the no-op outcome.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds a meaningful semantic constraint by saying the id and type must match the original dismissal, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it undoes dismiss_memory and restores the dismissed item. It also states the visible effect, reappearing in search and session context, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search and dismiss_memory.

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?

It explicitly names the inverse operation to use this tool for, tells the agent to reuse the same id and type that were dismissed, and documents the no-op case when the item was not dismissed. This gives clear when-to-use and edge-case guidance.

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