Restore Project Form

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description only states 'Restores' and 'returns the modified object' but fails to disclose important behaviors like what happens if the form is already restored, required permissions, or if the restoration is idempotent. With minimal annotation support, the description must carry the burden but does not.

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 includes irrelevant and inaccurate statements ('Use this to update an existing Forms') that confuse rather than clarify. It also unnecessarily repeats required parameters and includes endpoint details, making it less concise and harder to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description should at least explain that the form must be in the recycle bin, any side effects, and typical usage context. It only states 'Restores from Recycle Bin' and 'returns the modified object,' leaving out crucial context for correct invocation.

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 covers both parameters (id, project_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description redundantly states 'Required parameters: id, project_id' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Restores the specified Form from Recycle Bin,' which is specific. However, subsequent sentences introduce confusion by using update semantics ('Use this to update an existing Forms', 'Updates the specified Forms'), mixing restore and update concepts. This 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs other restore tools (e.g., restore_change_event, restore_coordination_issue_from_recycle_bin). The description incorrectly suggests it should be used for updating existing forms, which is misleading and provides no help for selecting the correct tool.

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