nexus_restore_comment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the GraphQL pool versus v1 REST rate-limit distinction, the OAuth Bearer auth requirement, the visibility effect ('comment becomes publicly visible again'), and the exact return payload shape. This substantially enriches the behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise, high-value behavioral constraints and a compact return format. Every sentence contributes essential information: pool usage, undo relationship, auth requirement, visibility effect, and response shape. Nothing is wasted and no unnecessary examples or filler are included.

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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, the auth requirement, the API pool it consumes, the effect on the resource, and the return structure. The output schema already exists, but the description still summarizes its key fields, and no critical operational detail is missing.

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% and the comment_id parameter is already described as 'Comment ID to restore (undo discard).' The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it also does not need to because the schema already fully documents the single parameter. A baseline 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a previously discarded comment via v2 GraphQL.' It clearly identifies the operation, distinguishes it from the v1 API path, and names its counterpart 'nexus_discard_comment' as the operation being undone. An agent cannot confuse this with the many comment-related siblings.

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 explicitly states the tool is the 'Undo for nexus_discard_comment' and that it applies to 'a previously discarded comment,' giving a clear condition for use. It also provides a critical exclusion: it requires OAuth Bearer auth and will be denied under apikey-only auth, which helps agents decide whether this tool can be invoked in their current context.

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