receipts_restore

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description is consistent with that. It adds real value by disclosing the state machine effect (cancelled → draft) and the downstream consequence that the receipt can be re-issued. It does not cover permissions, numbering effects, or what happens to an already-issued document.

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 with the action and precondition front-loaded. There is mild redundancy between "Only cancelled receipts can be restored" and "This reverses the cancellation", but nothing is wasted overall.

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 state-transition tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, precondition and outcome. The only gap is the side effects on document numbering or previously issued copies, which an agent might reasonably wonder about before restoring.

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 in the schema, including the companyId override semantics. The description adds no further meaning about uuid or companyId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 plus the exact state transition: a cancelled receipt is returned to draft status. An agent can distinguish it from receipts_cancel or receipts_refund from the description alone, though it never names those siblings 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 receipts can be restored" gives a clear precondition that tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming the alternative actions (e.g. re-issuing, cancelling again) or stating what to do if the receipt is in another state, so no exclusions are given.

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