restore_reference_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses no version check (and why) and a possible 409 conflict. This is good behavioral context beyond a simple 'undo delete'. Does not cover auth or side effects, but adequate for a restore operation.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and key nuance are front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers purpose, behavioral nuance, and error case. Lacks return value description (no output schema provided) and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., doc must be soft-deleted). Minor gaps for a simple tool.

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% - id parameter has a brief description. Tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it undoes delete_reference_doc to bring back a soft-deleted reference_doc. It specifies the verb ('bring back'), resource ('soft-deleted reference_doc'), and distinguishes from sibling restore tools (e.g., restore_flow) by naming the specific entity.

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?

Context is clear: use when you need to restore a soft-deleted reference_doc. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the sibling tools are for different entities, so differentiation is implicit. The 409 conflict note provides useful guidance.

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