restore_persona

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: the tool bypasses version checks, restores soft-deleted personas, and can return a 409 conflict. It lacks details on success response or side effects, but the provided information is substantial for a simple tool.

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: two sentences front-loading the purpose and including only essential additional information (no version check, conflict condition). Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (purpose, no version check, conflict error). However, it omits success behavior and any return value, which could be useful for an agent to verify the action succeeded. Still, fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Undo delete_persona — bring a soft-deleted persona back.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishes from siblings like discard_persona_draft or request_publish_persona, and includes behavioral details such as no version check and potential 409 conflict.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (after delete_persona) and hints at when it might fail (name/slot conflict). However, it does not explicitly guide to alternatives or warn about scenarios where this tool is inappropriate (e.g., if persona is not soft-deleted).

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