anon_post_risks_risk_id_restore

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it states the required project:manage permission and specifies exactly what is destroyed (clears ignorer, deadline, reason). This detail on the mutation's side effects goes well beyond destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first phrase, then permission, effect, and path. The raw HTTP path line is somewhat redundant given the tool name, but overall it is tight and earns its place.

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?

Covers permission requirement, state transition, side effects, and how the project context is resolved. With no output schema it could describe the return, but for a simple restore endpoint the essentials are present.

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%, so the schema documents nothing. The description reveals the path template with {riskId} and usefully clarifies that projectId must NOT be passed, but it does not explain riskId format or validity, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (恢复/restore) and resource (风险/risk), and the effect on state (已忽略 → active). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling anon_post_risks_risk_id_ignore, which does the opposite.

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 the when: it operates on an ignored risk and returns it to active. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or exclusion cases, but the condition that selects this tool is clear from the text.

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