Restore Equipment (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only or destructive. The description adds that it returns the recovered object, but otherwise provides no behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 relatively concise with four sentences, though the first sentence merely restates the title. It front-loads the purpose and includes required parameters and API endpoint info.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately mentions the return value. However, it does not address batch restoration implications or differentiate from the closely named sibling 'restoring_an_equipment'.

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 descriptions cover both parameters completely (100% coverage). The tool description redundantly lists required parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The schema description for 'ids' incorrectly says 'to be deleted,' but this is not part of the tool description.

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 clearly states the action (restore/reactivate) and resource (Equipment records) at the company scope. It distinguishes from project-level equipment tools, but the sibling 'restoring_an_equipment' suggests a potential overlap not addressed.

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 says when to use (restoring deleted equipment) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternative tools like update_equipment_company or delete_equipment_company.

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