Restore (undo) a hook installed via this MCP

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by disclosing the actual mechanism: function hooks re-resolve the target and call restorefunction with a fallback to re-hooking, metamethod hooks re-install the original, and restored hooks are removed from the registry. It also flags the approval requirement (explicit-mutation-approval), the active-client prerequisite, and that executor-side hook state is persistently mutated.

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 critical warning and purpose are front-loaded, and the trailing metadata (phase, cost, requires, verify, safety) is terse and scannable. There is some redundancy in the Signature line duplicating the input schema and in the closing tool-schema pointer, keeping it off a 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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it safely: what state changes, prerequisites, verification path (is-function-hooked), and a recovery hint on failure (inspect tool-schema). Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `all`, `key`, and `threadContext`. The description restates the key/all interplay (key from list-hooks, all ignores key) but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Undo a hook created by hook-function / hook-metamethod, restoring the captured original') and names the two sibling tools that created the hook. An agent can distinguish this from list-hooks, is-function-hooked, or restore-function without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to pass a `key` from list-hooks for one hook or `all: true` for every tracked hook, and gives the motivating scenario ('clean up after debugging so your hooks don't linger'). It does not state when not to use it (e.g., versus restore-function or hook-and-log-function), so it stops short of a 5.

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