Restore Company Form Template

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive or idempotent. The description confirms it updates/modifies data, but adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the template is already restored. With basic annotation coverage, the description offers marginal added value.

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 front-loads the main action but then adds confusing sentences about updating that contradict the restore purpose. It includes the endpoint path and category, which are unnecessary for an AI agent. Could be more concise and coherent.

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?

The description covers the basic action (restore) and mentions the return of a modified object, but it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., the template must be in the recycle bin), error conditions, and the tool's specific scope. The contradictory 'update' language confuses the overall context.

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 fully describes both parameters (id and company_id) with clear descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description merely reiterates 'Required parameters: id, company_id' without adding any new meaning or usage context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it restores a form template from the recycle bin, but the following sentences inconsistently describe it as an update operation ('Use this to update an existing Forms'), which muddles the purpose. The title is fine, but the description's internal contradiction reduces 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_company_form_template' or other restore tools. It merely states 'Use this to update an existing Forms', which is both inaccurate and not a usage guideline. No context on prerequisites or when to choose restore over other actions.

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