mgmt_counter_undelete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutating restore operation but says nothing about required permissions, ownership constraints, whether restoring is reversible, or what response the caller should expect.

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 core phrase is appropriately short and front-loaded, but the generic Yandex management documentation URL adds little value because it points to a broad documentation area rather than to counter restore documentation specifically. The description is concise but not fully information-dense.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter operation, and the schema documents those parameters completely. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of authentication or side effects, the description is only minimally complete for a management operation.

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 100%, so counterId and pretty are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that a counterId identifies the counter to restore, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 phrase 'Restore deleted counter' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like mgmt_counter_delete, mgmt_counter_create, and mgmt_counter_update. The intent is unambiguous even though the description is minimal.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions such as whether the counter must be in a deleted state. The sibling list shows many related counter tools, but the description does not help an agent choose between them beyond the obvious meaning of undelete.

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