restore_asset

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: revives tombstoned COs with original IDs and un-orphans linked controls. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions needed, or potential impact on other entities. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but leaves 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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Adequately covers core behavior but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., asset must be soft-deleted), common errors, or parameter relationships. Output schema exists (not shown) so return values need not be explained, but the description could still guide invocation decisions.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 67% (server_version lacks description), and the description does not compensate by explaining parameter roles or constraints.

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?

Clearly states the action (un-soft-delete an asset) and the resource (asset), distinguishing it from sibling restore tools like restore_attacker. Also explains side effects on related entities (COs and controls).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_asset for soft-delete, restore_attacker). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned, such as requiring the asset to be soft-deleted first.

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