Restore ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the soft-delete model ('deleted' = 'trashed'), but says nothing about what happens if the ticket isn't trashed, whether restore expires, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the disambiguating detail in the most useful position. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The remaining gap is operational context — retention limits and behavior on a non-trashed ticket — which the short description does not cover.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that ticket_id is the number shown as #INC-123 / #SR-123. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (ticket) and parenthetically disambiguates 'deleted' as 'trashed', which tells the agent this is the inverse of delete_ticket rather than a recreation step. It stops short of naming the sibling it pairs with, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(trashed)' implies the condition for use — the ticket must be in the trash — but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of retention windows, and no routing language distinguishing this from create_ticket or update_ticket when a tool selection is ambiguous.

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