restore_output_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: no version check (bypassing stale-version guard) and a 409 conflict condition. This gives the agent important safety information. Missing details like authentication or side effects, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first phrase and adds behavioral notes efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple restore tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a key behavioral trait (no version check), and a conflict scenario. It lacks an explanation of 'soft-deleted' or prerequisites, but overall it is adequate for the agent to use 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?

The only parameter 'id' is already described in the input schema ('The output_schema's id.'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no further value is provided.

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 tool's purpose: to undo delete_output_schema and bring back a soft-deleted output_schema. The verb 'restore' and resource 'output_schema' are specific. It distinguishes from the sibling 'restore_output_schema_version' by focusing on the schema itself, not a version.

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 provides context about when to use this tool (after a soft-delete) and mentions a potential conflict (409). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'restore_output_schema_version' for version-level recovery. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary notes.

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