restore_entity

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is mutating, creates a new model version, and only affects soft-deleted entities. It elaborates on side effects per entity type (e.g., reviving COs, un-orphaning controls, restoring trust-boundary reachability, and requiring re-attestation for assumptions). This gives the agent a comprehensive understanding of impacts beyond simple success/failure.

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 well-structured: it opens with a succinct purpose statement, then uses bullet points for per-type effects. Each line is concise and informative, with no redundant phrases. The length is justified by the complexity of supporting five entity types, and the front-loaded summary ensures quick understanding.

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 and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all core aspects: purpose, mutation behavior, side effects for each entity type, and prerequisites (soft-deleted state). The per-type details ensure the agent understands domain-specific consequences. The description is complete enough to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

Although schema coverage is 75% (3/4 parameters have descriptions), the description adds significant meaning to `entity_type` by enumerating valid values and their detailed effects. It also clarifies the condition of soft-deletion for `entity_id`. This goes beyond the minimal schema descriptions and compensates for the undocumented `server_version` by explaining its role implicitly (versioning).

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 tool's function: "Un-soft-delete a single entity of any core type, reversing a prior `remove_entity`." It uses a specific verb (un-soft-delete), specifies the resource (entity of core type), and explicitly links to the inverse tool, distinguishing it from siblings like remove_entity. It also notes it is mutating and creates a new model version.

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 explicit usage context: "Only affects an entity that is currently soft-deleted." It also states the inverse relationship with `remove_entity`, giving a clear when-to-use scenario. The per-type breakdown further details effects, helping the agent understand when each type is applicable.

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