recover_deleted_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates new items (cannot restore original IDs), double-recovery prevention, cross-project validation, and locked items handling. This goes beyond a basic restore description, though it could mention permissions or side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior detail, and additional handling. Excellent conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. Minor gaps: no mention of return value, prerequisites (items must be in cache), or limits on workItemIds array. Still, it provides enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds behavioral context (e.g., double-recovery prevention) but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 verb 'Restore' and resource 'deleted work items from recovery cache'. It further clarifies that new items are created with new IDs, distinguishing it from other operations like delete or cache management.

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 for restoration after deletion, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like delete_work_items or clear_cache. The extra info about handling double-recovery and validation provides some context but no direct guidance on choosing this tool.

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