undelete_group

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

Annotations already convey non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'previously deleted' precondition but does not disclose what the restore operation entails (e.g., restoring members, expenses, or group settings). It contradicts no 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates purpose with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, and the tool's core intent is immediately visible.

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 an output schema and useful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from a note about what is restored (e.g., all associated data) or any time limits, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the group_id parameter. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's phrase 'previously deleted group' clarifies that group_id refers to a deleted group to restore. This provides partial compensation but not full parameter-level guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and a specific resource ('previously deleted Splitwise group'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_group and undelete_expense by naming the exact resource and state.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to restore a previously deleted Splitwise group. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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