delivery_notes_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the state transition effect (cancelled → draft) and that re-issuing is enabled afterward. However, it doesn't disclose whether related records (e.g., linked invoices, stock movements) are affected or if there are any side effects beyond the status change.

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 compact, three sentences total, with no filler or redundant information. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds the precondition, and the third explains the business consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple state-transition tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema needed, the description covers the essential behavior. The precondition and post-condition are stated. A small gap exists around side effects on linked documents, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (uuid and companyId) are documented in the schema with their descriptions already matching the parameter names. The description adds the condition that only cancelled notes qualify, which gives context to the uuid parameter, but the schema already defines both parameters adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 verb (restore), the resource (delivery note), and the target state (back to draft status). It also distinguishes this operation by specifying it only applies to cancelled delivery notes, differentiating it from sibling tools like delivery_notes_create, delivery_notes_cancel, and delivery_notes_storno.

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 the precondition ('Only cancelled delivery notes can be restored') and the consequence ('reverses the cancellation and allows the delivery note to be re-issued'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for different states, but the cancel/issue sibling tools make the context clear.

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