curator_restore

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that restoring a lesson replaces the current same-slug section or re-adds it, and that restoring a skill replaces the primary skill dir and mirrors it to roots. These details align with `destructiveHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, adding specificity without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and efficient: four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

The description effectively explains the core restore behavior and resource-specific effects, which is useful for a destructive tool. However, it omits explanation of the required `pass_id` parameter and does not differentiate from the `lesson_restore` sibling, leaving an agent with incomplete context for safe and correct selection. The presence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies the roles of `lesson_slug` and `skill_name` and the exactly-one rule, but it never explains the required `pass_id` parameter, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 action ('Restore'), resource ('one lesson or skill'), and source ('curator pre-mutation snapshot'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope by covering both lessons and skills, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool `lesson_restore`, so the differentiation is not fully spelled out.

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 gives a hard constraint ('Pass exactly one of lesson_slug or skill_name') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `lesson_restore` or when not to use it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-conditions are mentioned.

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