restore_attacker

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: reviving tombstoned COs and un-orphaning linked controls. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it omits details on permissions, reversibility, or error cases.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two brief sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and side effects.

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 that an output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description is reasonably complete for a restore operation. It explains the main effect and side effects, though it could benefit from mentioning conditions like 'attacker must be soft-deleted'.

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 description coverage is 67%, and the description does not add additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The server_version parameter lacks description, and the tool description does not clarify its role.

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 action ('Un-soft-delete an attacker') and the specific resource ('attacker'), with additional context about side effects on controls. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_attacker and add_attacker.

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?

While the description implies usage for restoring a soft-deleted attacker, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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