nexo_followup_restore

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the followup is restored to PENDING, but omits side effects, error conditions, or state requirements beyond 'soft-deleted'. Missing behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first describes purpose, second gives crucial usage instruction. No filler, front-loaded.

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?

The description includes a prerequisite and state change, but lacks explanation of return values (no output schema) and error cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a restore operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's note about read_token from nexo_followup_get, adding no new information. The emphasis is helpful but doesn't exceed schema.

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 explicitly states 'Restore a soft-deleted followup back to PENDING' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexo_followup_delete and nexo_followup_create by specifying the action on a soft-deleted followup.

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 gives a strong prerequisite: 'call nexo_followup_get first and pass its READ_TOKEN.' This tells the agent the necessary precondition but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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