neurover_node_restore_last_success

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

The description reinforces the annotation profile by stating 'Меняет полотно' (it mutates the canvas), consistent with readOnlyHint=false, and adds the operational caution about not calling it uninstructed. It does not say what happens to existing node content, whether the restore is reversible, or anything about permissions, so it adds context but stops short of real behavioral depth.

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, mutation scope first, then the usage restriction, then the redirect to the alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and routing well but leaves the parameter contract and any return/canvas-state effects unexplained. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to invoke it confidently.

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 carry the load for workflowId, nodeId and account. It only loosely implies node ('плитка') and canvas ('полотно') meaning, and never mentions the account parameter or the ID types/constraints, leaving the required parameters essentially undocumented.

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+resource: restoring a tile's (node's) last successful result, and explicitly separates that from ordinary generation. The agent can distinguish it from prepare_generation, though the 'tile/canvas' vocabulary is domain shorthand that requires the sibling context to fully decode.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition ('call only on a direct user request about tiles or canvas') and names the correct alternative for the normal case (prepare_generation via the canvas chat). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure an agent needs.

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