Restore Deleted Checklist (Inspection)

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns the modified object and only supplied fields are changed, which is consistent with a PATCH restore operation. However, details like error handling or state transitions are missing.

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 concise (two sentences plus API info). However, the second sentence ('Use this to update...') is slightly redundant and could be clearer about restoration rather than generic update.

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 simple restore operation, the description covers the basic purpose and required parameters. It lacks prerequisite conditions (e.g., inspection must be in recycle bin) and details about the response object structure, given no output schema.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description merely repeats 'Required parameters: id, project_id' without additional semantic detail, so it adds no value 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 the tool restores a deleted Checklist (Inspection). The endpoint path and parameters reinforce this purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like restore_recycled_checklist_template.

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 states to use it for restoring deleted inspections but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. Required parameters are listed, but no contextual guidance on prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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