restore_from_memory_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool restores an entry but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether the entry is removed from the archive after restoration), required permissions (only Owner/Admin), or idempotency. The return format is briefly mentioned but lacks detail.

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 structured with separate sections for purpose, permission note, and Args/Returns. However, the contradiction regarding 'caller_agent_id' reduces clarity, and the format could be more streamlined.

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 lack of annotations, zero schema description coverage, and the presence of a sibling global tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'restore' entails (e.g., moving vs copying), how the entry is selected, or how errors are reported beyond a list of possible return fields.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. For 'key', it provides a clear description ('キー of the entry to restore'). However, for 'caller_agent_id', the description says it is required, contradicting the schema which marks it optional with a default of null. This inconsistency misleads the agent about parameter requirements.

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 action ('restore') and the resource ('memory entry from archive'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'restore_from_global_memory_archive', which could lead to confusion about which archive is targeted.

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 a usage restriction (Owner and Admin only) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_from_memory' or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or typical workflows.

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