Restore Recycled Action Plan

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: return value, error statuses (401/403/404), and project_id defaulting behavior. However, it also contains a confusing 'Send only fields you intend to change' phrase that doesn't match the two-parameter restore endpoint, and it contradicts the schema by saying project_id defaults when omitted while the schema marks it required. This weakens reliability.

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 longer than needed, with redundant elements like 'Required parameters: project_id, id' (already in schema) and the mismatched partial-update sentence. It is structured well and front-loads purpose, but includes unnecessary or misleading content that prevents a higher score.

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 two-parameter restore tool, it covers purpose, prerequisites, return value, and error codes, which is fairly complete. However, internal contradictions (required vs. default project_id, partial-update semantics) create confusion about how to actually use the tool, and the effect of 'restore' on the record's lifecycle is not explained beyond returning a modified object.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds some value: project_id default behavior and the requirement to resolve id via a list tool. But the default statement directly conflicts with the required flag in the schema, reducing trust in the added parameter guidance.

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 opens with 'Restores the specified Action Plan from Recycle Bin,' which clearly states the specific action and resource. It also includes the endpoint (PATCH .../restore), making it distinct from sibling list/show/retrieve tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: use this to restore from Recycle Bin and resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative restore tools or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite guidance is actionable. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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