avanan_restore_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns task IDs, which hints at async behavior, and that it restores entities. However, it does not mention any permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what happens if an entity is not quarantined. The 'returns task IDs' is useful but incomplete for a mutating tool without annotation support.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the verb and object. It conveys purpose and output without any fluff, making it highly efficient and easy 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?

For a simple tool that takes entity IDs and returns task IDs, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, the input type, and the output. It omits explicit mention of async behavior or checking task status, but the 'returns task IDs' hints at it. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete, though a mention of the async nature would strengthen it.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds the context that entities are 'quarantined' and implies the entityIds are the primary parameter, but it does not elaborate beyond the schema. It adds some value by clarifying the object type but does not compensate for any missing schema info, given coverage is high.

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 a specific verb ('Restore'), a resource ('quarantined entities (emails)'), and the method ('by entity ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like avanan_restore_events (which restores events) and avanan_quarantine_emails (which quarantines). The tool name and description align perfectly.

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 implies when to use this tool (when restoring quarantined emails) but does not explicitly reference alternatives or conditions. It does not say 'for events, use avanan_restore_events' or mention any prerequisites like MSP scope. The context is clear enough from the word 'emails', but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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