memory_restore

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by naming the concrete state changes ('clears the archive flag and tombstone note') and the downstream effects (visible to recall, list, audit, find_similar), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the mechanism, then the effect. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the resulting state reasonably well. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g. restoring an already-active or nonexistent memory) or which identifier combination is required, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so all three parameters (ref, title, category) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no information about how ref relates to title/category or which identifier form to prefer, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Restore a previously archived memory to the active set'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It implicitly pairs with memory_archive but never explicitly distinguishes itself from memory_revision_restore, knowledge_restore, or person_restore, so an agent must infer which restore variant applies.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'previously archived memory' – the agent can infer this applies to archived items, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing between this and the other restore tools (memory_revision_restore, knowledge_restore, person_restore) in the sibling set.

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