receipts_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the state transition (cancelled → draft) and that cancellation is reversed, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether restored receipts regenerate document numbers, affect accounting/ANAF sync, or impact refunds, which would be valuable for a financial document mutation tool.

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, front-loaded purpose, zero filler. Every word earns its place: state transition, precondition, and consequence all conveyed efficiently.

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 state-transition tool with 2 simple parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and a focused purpose, the description is mostly adequate. The gap is behavioral context: no mention of whether restoration is reversible, how it interacts with accounting/AFIP sync, or what validation might fail (e.g., if the receipt was already converted or issued). Given the financial domain, slightly more context would help.

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% with both parameters described clearly in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond schema, so with full coverage this is baseline 3. The uuid is self-explanatory as 'UUID of the cancelled receipt to restore', and companyId overrides default.

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+resource+state transition: 'Restore a cancelled receipt back to draft status.' It also notes the precondition (only cancelled receipts can be restored) and the outcome (re-issuable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like receipts_cancel, receipts_delete, and invoices_restore.

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 clearly communicates the precondition 'Only cancelled receipts can be restored' and the re-issuance outcome, which gives context for when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for other statuses (e.g., receipts_delete for permanently removing), though the precondition narrows scope well.

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