restore_expenseUndo accidental expense deletions by restoring the deleted record to keep your spending history accurate.
Restore a previously deleted expense. Use this to undo an accidental deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expense_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the action is non-destructive and references a previously deleted expense, but it does not mention required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens if the expense_id is invalid or belongs to a non-deleted expense.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core information—restoring a deleted expense and its intended use case—is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly adequate, but it still lacks behavioral and error-context details that matter for safe invocation. The absence of annotations and undeclared permission or idempotency semantics leaves the description as only minimally viable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely implies that expense_id identifies a previously deleted expense, but it does not explicitly explain that this ID must refer to a deleted expense or clarify any constraints beyond the integer type.
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 identifies the action ('Restore') and the resource ('previously deleted expense'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also establishes a clear contrast with the sibling delete_expense, so the agent can recognize this as the inverse operation.
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 phrase 'Use this to undo an accidental deletion' provides a clear when-to-use condition. There are no competing restore tools among the siblings, so explicit exclusions or alternatives are not necessary, though they would round out the guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.