restore_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two significant behaviors: no version check (to avoid stale-version guards) and potential 409 conflict. Could mention permissions or idempotency, but the key points are covered.

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 with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then follows with essential behavioral notes. 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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Explains purpose, conflict condition, and version check behavior. Could be slightly more explicit about what constitutes a 'soft-deleted' state or return format, but overall complete.

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% with the 'id' parameter already described. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it undoes delete_tool by bringing a soft-deleted tool back. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('bring back tool') and distinguishes itself from sibling restore tools (e.g., restore_agent) by targeting tools.

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?

Provides context on when to use it (after deletion) and notes a key caution: a 409 conflict occurs if a live tool occupies the same name/slot. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like creating a new tool, but the conflict warning serves as a guideline.

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