undelete_expense

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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as idempotency or side effects, but does not contradict the annotations. Since the bar is lower with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero filler. The action and object are front-loaded, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage guidance and potential behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens if the expense is already restored), leaving some gaps in completeness for an agent to navigate without further context.

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%, and the schema already fully documents expense_id as 'Id of the previously deleted expense to restore.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise verb ('restore') and resource ('previously deleted expense'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like delete_expense and create_expense. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it could add a bit more specificity about what restoration entails (e.g., restoring to active status).

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the expense must be soft-deleted, or if there are restrictions on which deleted expenses can be restored). The agent is left to infer the usage context from the name and description alone.

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