Restore Coordination Issue From Recycle Bin

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide basic safety info, but the description adds little beyond 'updates' and 'returns modified object'. It fails to disclose that this is a restoration operation (likely reactivating the issue) and does not mention side effects like status changes. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant phrases ('Use this to update an existing Coordination Issues') and extraneous API endpoint info that is not necessarily helpful. It could be streamlined to focus on the restoration action.

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 tool has a specific restore operation with no output schema, so the description should explain the restoration effect (e.g., issue becomes active, what fields change). Instead, it misleadingly describes an update operation. The missing context makes it hard for an agent to understand the tool's true purpose and behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the required params (id, project_id) and their locations (URL path, JSON body), but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 claims 'Restore Coordination Issue from Recycle Bin' but then explains it as 'update an existing Coordination Issues (only the supplied fields are changed).' This conflates two distinct operations (restore vs. update) and fails to clearly state that the tool brings a deleted issue back to active state. The purpose is ambiguous and internally contradictory.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_coordination_issues_in_recycle_bin' or other coordination issue tools. The description does not explain the restoration context or prerequisites (e.g., issue must be in recycle bin). An agent would not know when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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