palinode_restore

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by detailing exact state changes: flips `status` to `active`, drops `superseded_by`, records `restored_at`/`restored_from` provenance and a history line, and commits. It also discloses non-actions (does not un-strike retraction markers or re-enable triggers), which adds value beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 dense but not bloated: it front-loads the core action, then provides the inverse relationship, concrete state mutations, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, though the long em-dash sentence could be slightly easier to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the full effect on memory state, provenance, and history. It also states what it does not do. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return-value or error behavior guidance, but the effect model is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with `file_path` and `reason` both described inline. The description adds minimal semantic nuance beyond the schema (e.g., example file path format), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Bring one archived memory back into default recall' and explicitly identifies it as the inverse of `palinode_archive`. It also distinguishes itself from `palinode_unretract`, so an agent can clearly tell this tool apart from its siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly says this is the inverse of `palinode_archive` for every archive path, clarifying when it applies. It also names `palinode_unretract` as the alternative for retraction markers, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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