pbi_recover_from_journal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses destructive behavior upfront, details conflict handling and the `recovery_conflict` rejection, notes byte-by-byte verification after restoration, and mentions recreation of missing parent directories. This is exceptionally thorough.

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 well-structured: purpose and warning, preview behavior, statuses and conflict handling, and post-restoration checks. Each paragraph contributes distinct information with no redundancy, and the destructive warning is placed prominently at the start.

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 destructive and complex tool, the description covers preview, conflict scenarios, verification, and directory restoration thoroughly. An output schema exists to document return values, but the lack of details about the required `journal` parameter format and the optional `request_id` parameter prevents full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `confirm` and `force_conflict` well, but `journal` is only referenced generically and `request_id` is never mentioned, leaving two of four parameters under-specified. The added meaning is useful but incomplete.

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 opens with 'Restaura los originales guardados en un journal' (Restores the originals saved in a journal) and explicitly marks the operation as DESTRUCTIVA. This clearly identifies the tool's verb, resource, and destructive nature, distinguishing it from inspection tools like pbi_inspect_journal and pbi_list_pending_journals.

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 explains the preview-first workflow: without `confirm` it shows what would be restored, and with `confirm` it executes. It also explains when `force_conflict` should be used to override conflicts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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