unvoid_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behaviors: restoring original split values and removing void markers. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the transaction isn't voided, or whether it modifies accounting state irreversibly. For a mutation tool, it does disclose the core destructive behavior reasonably well.

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?

Concise single-paragraph description with a brief Args section. No wasted words, but the Args repetition of schema info is slightly redundant. Front-loaded with the action and effect, which is good practice.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does and what it changes. However, some edge-case behavior is undocumented (e.g., behavior when transaction isn't voided, empty GUID handling). Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.

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% - the single 'guid' parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Transaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)'. The description repeats this same information in the Args section, adding no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema does all the work.

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 tool restores a voided transaction, restores original split values, and removes void markers. The verb 'Restore' plus the resource 'voided transaction' makes the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling void_transaction, but the inverse relationship is implied by the name and description.

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 this is the inverse of void_transaction and should be used when a transaction was voided and needs restoring. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., transaction must be voided first), or note any conditions that would make the operation fail.

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