Restore identifiers into a local file

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing the side effect of writing to REDACTA_RELEASE_DIR and the exact return behavior: 'Returns only a receipt — file path, size, and counts.' It also states the privacy property that restored data never enters the model context, which is critical behavioral information.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and destination. The third sentence adds usage context but is somewhat redundant with the privacy point already made in the second sentence, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it does, where it writes, what it returns, and why it is privacy-preserving. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or understand its side effects is missing.

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 both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Restore'), a specific resource ('original identifiers'), and a concrete destination ('a file inside the server's configured release directory'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like reinstate by emphasizing that the result is written to a file and 'restored data never enters the model context.'

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: 'the privacy-preserving way to complete the round trip.' It implies that alternatives may return data into context, but it does not explicitly name them or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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