restore_attacker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states it is 'Mutating,' describes side effects in detail (reinstates under original ID, revives control objectives, un-orphans controls), and specifies the scope ('Only affects an attacker that is currently soft-deleted'). It also mentions the return value, providing complete transparency for the tool's core behavior.

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: a one-line summary followed by a short paragraph of critical details. Every sentence earns its place—no filler, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool's complexity (restoring a soft-deleted attacker with cascading effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential effects and scope. It lacks error-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the attacker is not soft-deleted), but this is a minor gap since the output schema documents return values and the description clearly states the precondition.

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% (model_id and attacker_id have descriptions, server_version does not). The description adds behavioral context for attacker_id and model_id but does not explain the purpose of server_version at all. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter, it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Un-soft-delete an attacker previously removed with remove_attacker.' This clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like add_attacker/edit_attacker. The explicit reference to remove_attacker as the counterpart operation makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context by stating 'previously removed with remove_attacker' and adds an exclusion: 'Only affects an attacker that is currently soft-deleted.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and implies when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives (e.g., using add_attacker for a new attacker), so it stops short of a 5.

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