writ_reinstate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral facts: sponsor-only restriction, tenant scoping, required token, and that the principal is re-evaluated by policy. It does not detail idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond the re-evaluation, but the core auth and effect context is present.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most important constraint ('SPONSOR ONLY') is placed first, and every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth, scope, and effect. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a clear completeness gap for invoking the tool correctly.

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% and the description does not mention or explain either required parameter (sponsor_id, agent_id). It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the meaning of both parameters 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Undo writ_revoke') and states the resulting effect ('the principal is evaluated by policy again'). It explicitly names the sibling operation it reverses, allowing an agent to distinguish it from writ_revoke and other writ_* tools.

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?

It provides clear prerequisites and context: 'SPONSOR ONLY', 'Scoped to your tenant', and 'Requires WRIT_SPONSOR_TOKEN'. The use case is implied by 'Undo writ_revoke', but there is no explicit statement of when-not to use it or a named alternative for granting new access.

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