Undispose item

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is a dry-run by default and only mutates when confirm is true. The 'Write.' label reinforces that it is a mutating action. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences clearly front-load the purpose, then state the dry-run/apply mechanism and mutability. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, outcome, and dry-run/confirm safety behavior. It does not describe what the dry-run preview returns, but the schema's confirm description mentions a preview, so this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The only parameter-related behavior mentioned ('pass confirm:true to apply') restates the schema's confirm description; no additional meaning is added for id, note, or auditUser.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Reverse a disposition') and states the outcome ('return a disposed firearm to available inventory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dispose, delete_disposition, and create_pending_disposition.

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 operational guidance: dry-run by default with confirm:true to apply, which tells the agent how to safely use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks the full 'when/not' structure.

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