restore_agent

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the agent must be archived), or what 'restore' entails operationally. This leaves the agent without behavioral guidance.

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, direct sentence with no filler words, front-loading the action and resource.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks necessary context about the restore behavior, such as whether it reactivates the agent, any constraints, or the effect of workspace_id. This is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 description does not explain the 'id' parameter or how it relates to an agent, and only the schema provides a minimal description for workspace_id. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'id'.

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 (restore) and resource (agent) with a qualifier (previously archived), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_agent, update_agent, and archive_agent.

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 the tool is for undoing an archival but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It does not mention that it reverses archive_agent or that create_agent is for new agents.

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