Restore Recycled Company Action Plan Template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden. It adds that the endpoint is PATCH and returns the modified object, which is helpful. However, it fails to disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects (e.g., restoring from recycle bin reverses deletion), or whether other fields are affected. The ambiguous 'update' wording further undermines transparency. Given the annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 brief but contains contradictory information ('restores' vs 'update') that could confuse. The endpoint and required params are front-loaded, but the second sentence is unnecessary and misleading. A cleaner version would drop the 'update' phrasing and focus solely on restore behavior. It earns a 3 because it is compact but not optimally structured.

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 tool's complexity (a restore operation with potential side effects) and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what 'restore' entails (e.g., undeleting, reverting changes) and what the returned object represents. It does not provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the full impact. The confusing 'update' language further detracts from completeness. This is a notable gap.

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 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (URL path parameters). The description mentions 'Required parameters: company_id, id' and includes the endpoint URL with placeholders, which adds slight context. However, it does not explain the values or constraints beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not meaningfully exceed it.

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 states 'Restores the specified Company Action Plan Template from Recycle Bin,' which clearly identifies the primary action and resource. However, it then confusingly says 'Use this to update an existing Action Plans,' which contradicts the restore intent and could mislead an agent about the tool's actual function. The purpose is partially clear but marred by inconsistent language.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are many restore tools, but no differentiation (e.g., when to restore a company action plan template vs. action plan). The phrase 'Use this to update...' is misleading and does not help with selection. This is a significant gap.

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