Restore A Time And Material Entry

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a modified object on success, but beyond that, it adds little behavioral context. Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the entry must be deleted), error conditions, side effects, or permissions required. With no annotations providing safety hints, the description carries the burden but fails to adequately explain the tool's behavior.

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 contains redundant and inaccurate sentences. The second and third sentences essentially repeat the same incorrect update information, and the 'Required parameters' line is unnecessary since the schema already indicates required fields. The description could be significantly shortened and corrected without losing meaning.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description should clarify that the entry must be in a deleted state prior to restoration and what the response contains. It fails to mention these prerequisites and provides no details about the returned object. The misleading update content further detracts from completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (project_id, id) with 100% coverage. The description merely reiterates that they are required, adding no new semantic meaning. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 first sentence states 'Restored a deleted Time And Material Entry,' which clearly indicates the primary purpose. However, subsequent sentences erroneously describe an update operation ('Use this to update an existing Field Productivity records... Updates the specified Field Productivity records'), creating confusion about whether this tool restores or updates entries. This inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_a_time_and_material_entry' or 'delete_a_time_and_material_entry'. It misleadingly instructs to use it for updating records, which contradicts its restore functionality. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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