Restore location

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: restoring a premises cascades to its sublocations (a side effect), and a sublocation restore requires an active parent (a precondition that can silently fail). It omits any mention of version/concurrency or idempotency.

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, no filler, and the cascade rule is placed after the core action. Every clause conveys a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and zero annotation coverage of parameters, the cascade/precondition rules are the right content, but the gap around farm_id, expected_version, and conflict behavior on a stale version leaves an agent underinformed.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails. It only implicitly identifies the target ('location'), and says nothing about farm_id scoping or what expected_version means (optimistic concurrency), leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Restore an archived location'), which is enough to tell it apart from create_location or update_location. It stops short of naming siblings such as archive_location or restore_group, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 implies when to use it (only for archived locations) and gives preconditions for sublocations. However, it never names the counterpart operation (archive_location) or states what to do instead when a parent is inactive, so alternatives are left to inference.

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