Restore a memory or an older version

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them by bounding that destructiveness: a restore creates the next revision, keeps other retained versions, and never permanently deletes. It also gives the concurrency contract for expected_revision ('Never guess or increment it yourself') and the permission requirement, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Roughly five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and permission requirement before the conditional revision rules. Every sentence carries either a scope constraint, a branch rule, or a side-effect guarantee; nothing is repeated filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the remaining burden: preconditions, side effects on retained versions, non-destructiveness, and revision sourcing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: expected_revision must be sourced from the trash or version history, and revision is conditional on whether the record is live or trashed. The one genuine addition beyond the schema text is the instruction to read the version's full content before choosing a revision.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a trashed record or a retained older version in the selected Vault') with the scope of what is restorable made explicit. It implicitly separates itself from ragionex_delete_memory and ragionex_update_memory by declaring 'It never permanently deletes a record' and 'creates the next revision', so an agent can place it among the siblings immediately.

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?

Gives explicit branch conditions: live record vs trashed record, with the rule 'For a live record, choose revision after reading that version's full content' and 'For a trashed record, omit revision to restore its last content.' It also names a precondition ('Requires update permission'), leaving no routing inference to the agent.

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