restore_deterministic_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers a full Excel recalculation (Application.CalculateFull), which is a heavy operation. It explains the behavioral effect (restores deterministic values). No mention of side effects or permissions, but given the recovery context, it's reasonably transparent.

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 a single paragraph but packs problem statement, action, mechanism, and usage guidance into a tight, front-loaded structure. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's recovery purpose and the presence of an output schema (context signal indicates it exists), the description is complete: it explains what triggers the condition, what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. No gaps for the agent to guess.

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?

Only one optional parameter (workbook_name) with a schema description covering 100% of parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema's 'Workbook to recalculate. Omit for the active workbook.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: recover a workbook from a 'frozen sample' state where VoseOutput cells show per-iteration values instead of deterministic baselines. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_simulation (which triggers simulation) and list_modelrisk_outputs (which reads outputs) by specifying the exact problem scenario.

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 tells when to use the tool: after `run_simulation` raises a post-condition error, or when `list_modelrisk_outputs` shows nonsense current values. It also explains the mechanism (full Excel recalculation). No explicit when-not-to-use, but the conditions are well-defined.

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