memory_revision_restore

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

The description discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the current body is snapshotted first, making the restore recoverable. However, 'restore is never destructive' sits in tension with destructiveHint=true — the annotation warns the agent of a state-changing overwrite while the prose reassures it away, which could lull an agent into treating the call as harmless.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: purpose and reversibility first, prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, and the required upstream lookup. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens to prior snapshots over time or whether the restore invalidates the revision, which an agent could reasonably want to know.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the note that revision_id comes from the memory_history listing. The description restates that source but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail (e.g., behavior when revision_id is stale), 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 snapshotted memory body back onto the memory') and scopes it to a revision snapshot, which separates it from the archive-oriented sibling memory_restore. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating the distinction explicitly, so an agent must infer it from wording alone.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to a named alternative ('Use memory_history to list revision IDs before calling this'), which is exactly the kind of directional guidance that aids tool selection. There is no stated when-not-to-use case (e.g., when memory_restore or memory_merge is preferable), so it falls short of a 5.

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