delivery_notes_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real state-transition semantics that annotations cannot convey: the source state (cancelled), the target state (draft), and the follow-on capability (re-issuing). It stops short of describing error behavior or permissions.

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 result. The precondition and the 're-issued' rationale each earn their place; no filler.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the description supplies purpose, precondition, and state effect. Missing only edge-case behavior (what happens if the note is not cancelled) and return information, which are minor here.

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 uuid and companyId are already documented. The description only implies the uuid refers to a cancelled note and adds nothing about the companyId override or identifier format; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a cancelled delivery note') plus the resulting state ('back to draft status'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like delivery_notes_cancel or delivery_notes_storno, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Only cancelled delivery notes can be restored' gives a concrete precondition for when the tool applies. It does not route to alternatives (e.g. use cancel for the inverse, or storno for other reversals), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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