restore_automation

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it describes the 30-day recovery window, re-enabling side effect, return fields, and error codes (410, 409). This is transparent and comprehensive.

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 with three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return/errors, usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool has one simple parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, errors, usage, and expected result thoroughly. It is fully self-contained and meets the needs for correct invocation.

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 trigger_id is not explicitly described in the description, but the context ('Restore a previously soft-deleted automation trigger') clarifies its role. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by implying the parameter's purpose. A score of 4 is reasonable given the simplicity of the parameter.

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 restores a soft-deleted automation trigger within a 30-day window. The verb 'Restore' and resource 'automation trigger' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like delete_automation or disable_automation.

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?

It explicitly provides a 'USE WHEN' section that tells when to use (accidental deletion, undo flow) and suggests pairing with disable_automation as an alternative. This gives clear guidance on context and exclusion.

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