nexo_cognitive_restore

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the stated action. It omits details about side effects, authorization requirements, or any constraints (e.g., whether it can restore from multiple states at once).

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite the tool being simple, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'active state' means, how the 'store' parameter affects behavior, or what the output indicates. Given no output schema and no annotations, additional context is needed for full usability.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (memory_id, store) with descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'Restore', the resource 'a memory', and the target state 'active'. It also specifies the source states (pinned/snoozed/archived), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nexo_cognitive_archive or nexo_cognitive_pin.

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 implies usage context by listing the source states, making it obvious when to use this tool (to bring a memory back to active). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling tools cover the opposite actions.

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