restore

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaningful context that the restored content becomes a *tracked insertion* (a revision, not a silent write) and that omitting `change` restores every paragraph the op deleted. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not disclose return values or the reversibility of the tracked change.

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?

Very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. The second sentence is a grammatical fragment ('Without `change`, every paragraph the op deleted'), which is efficient but slightly hurts readability.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and default scope but omits return behavior and how it interacts with revisions/history. High schema coverage compensates for undocumented params, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 high (89%), which sets a baseline of 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning for `change`: the schema only says it is an index, while the description explains the default behavior when it is omitted ('every paragraph the op deleted'). Other parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Bring a logged paragraph back as a tracked insertion'), so the agent knows this restores a previously deleted/changed paragraph. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like `undo`, `history_list`, or `history_search`, and the phrasing 'after the paragraph that holds its place now' is awkward to parse.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., `undo`, `history_search`, `history_orphans`) despite several plausible siblings. The only conditional hint is buried in the parameter text ('needed when that place was edited'), which is not tool-level guidance.

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