restore_from_global_memory_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the action and access restrictions but fails to disclose side effects, error handling, or idempotency. The contradiction about caller_agent_id requirement undermines trust.

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 short and to the point, including an access note and parameter descriptions. The 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema but provides Japanese translations. It could be more formalized.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (2 parameters), the description covers the basic purpose and access restrictions. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, recovery behavior, and error outcomes. The output schema exists but is not used to reduce burden.

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?

The description adds meaning to parameters by translating and clarifying their purpose (e.g., 'key of entry to restore'). However, it contradicts the schema by stating caller_agent_id is required when it is optional with a default null, reducing accuracy.

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 'restore entry from global archive' and distinguishes from the non-global sibling tool by specifying 'global' and 'common to all projects'. The verb 'restore' and resource 'global archive' are specific.

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 explicitly states 'Only Owner and Admin can use', providing a clear access restriction. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like restore_from_memory_archive or other archive operations.

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