restore_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect (entities reappear if the note was their last), indicating it's a mutation. It could be improved by noting if the operation is idempotent or requires special permissions.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and key side effect, second explains the parameter with an example. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple restore tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side effect, and parameter usage. It lacks details on error conditions (e.g., if the note isn't removed) but is largely sufficient.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning by specifying the 'note' parameter with an example format ('e.g. "note-3"'). This helps the agent understand how to provide the argument correctly.

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 the tool's purpose: restoring a removed note. It also specifies a behavioral consequence (entities reappear if it was their last note), which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_note or restore_entity.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (to bring back a removed note) and gives a conditional side effect. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related actions.

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