confirm_restore_rules

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses that the tool is destructive, deletes all current inbox rules, requires fresh authentication, and creates a safety backup that makes the operation reversible. This is comprehensive 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary starting with 'COMMIT...Destructive.', followed by a paragraph explaining effects and requirements, then an 'Args:' section. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, precondition (draft_id from restore_rules), effects (destructive, backup), and reversibility. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

The description explains that `draft_id` is the id returned by `restore_rules`, which adds meaning beyond the schema title 'Draft Id'. Schema coverage is 0%, so this parameter description is beneficial.

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 it commits a restore previewed by `restore_rules`, and explains it deletes current rules and recreates snapshot's rules. This distinguishes it from the sibling `restore_rules` tool.

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?

It explicitly states it requires a `draft_id` from `restore_rules` and that it is destructive. It implies it is used after a preview, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or list alternatives beyond `restore_rules`.

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