unvoid_transaction

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomicity ('all-or-nothing'), the restoration source, clearing of void markers and reason, and the reconciliation side effect: restored splits return as UNreconciled. It also explains failure modes clearly.

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 first sentence states the purpose, followed by well-structured behavioral details and the Args section. Every sentence contributes important operational information, with the core scoping constraint front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and an existing output schema, this description covers preconditions, failure modes, atomicity, and post-restoration state. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, and the Args section largely repeats the schema's guid description ('32-char hex string, or 8+ char prefix'). It adds no substantial meaning beyond identifying guid as the target transaction.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object: 'Restore a voided transaction to its pre-void amounts.' It also explicitly identifies the relationship to void_transaction as its inverse, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 states that this is 'the inverse of void_transaction' and gives concrete preconditions: it errors if the transaction isn't found or isn't voided. This clearly tells an agent when to use it and when it is not applicable.

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