Restore a form from the trash in the current team (undo delete_form). Only the form owner or the team owner / admin can restore; errors if the form is not in the trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | The form UUID to restore from trash |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | No | The form restored from trash | |
| message | No | Human-readable result |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the restore operation's authorization requirements and its error condition when the form is not trashed. It does not fully explore side effects, but for a single-parameter restore action with an output schema, this is substantive additional context.
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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Restore a form from the trash'), then adds the inverse-operation reference and the key constraints. Every clause earns its place.
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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations indicating mutation but non-destructiveness, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, scope, permissions, and failure condition. The agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke restore_form 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 100%: formId is documented as 'The form UUID to restore from trash'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, but nor is it required to because the schema already fully explains the only parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.
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 operation: 'Restore a form from the trash in the current team'. It explicitly frames it as 'undo delete_form', which distinguishes it from both delete_form and the various create/update siblings. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 explicit conditions for use: it is the inverse of delete_form, applies within the current team, and is only permitted for the form owner or team owner/admin. It also states when it will fail ('errors if the form is not in the trash'), giving the agent clear call-time guardrails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions actively disambiguate similar operations (e.g., get_form vs get_form_share_info vs get_form_stats). The main potential confusion is between list_records and list_leads and between get_record and get_lead, since both describe leads from slightly different angles.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, with resources like form, question, lead, booking, examinee, translation, and tenant parallel across actions. The few non-CRUD verbs like prepare_/finalize_, duplicate_, and reschedule_ still fit the same uniform pattern.
48 tools is well beyond the 3–15 ideal and even past the 25+ threshold, making the tool surface heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the size, but the count still risks overwhelming context and increasing misselection.
The server covers form lifecycle, question editing, translations, CRM leads, examinees, records, bookings, team/tenant operations, image uploads, templates, and analytics extremely well. Minor gaps remain—such as no lead/record deletion, no member removal or role updates, and limited booking-settings management—but most workflows can be completed with the existing tools.