restore_asset

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the restoration process: revives tombstoned COs with original IDs and un-orphans controls. However, it omits details like idempotency or error states, but is above average 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 efficient sentences: first states core action, second explains effects. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the operation and presence of an output schema, description covers restoration behavior and related entity effects. Lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but sufficient for agent use.

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 67% with descriptions for asset_id and model_id. Description adds no extra meaning to parameters, nor explains server_version. Baseline holds, but no value added.

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 the tool reverses a soft-delete, reviving tombstoned COs and un-orphaning linked controls. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like remove_asset and restore_assumption.

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?

Implied usage is when an asset has been soft-deleted, but no explicit guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use. Does not compare with similar restore tools for other entities.

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