restore_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only archived tickets can be restored and that multiple IDs are supported, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without any waste.

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 operation, the description adequately covers the purpose and the constraint that tickets must be archived. The schema fully documents the only parameter, and while return values are not described, the low complexity makes this mostly 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?

The schema already provides full coverage for the 'ids' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'restore' with the resource 'archived tickets', clearly indicating the action and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like archive_tickets and delete_tickets by specifying that it reverses archiving.

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 implies usage context (restoring previously archived tickets) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or contrast with similar tools, so guidance is only implied.

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