recover_deleted_command

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action 'restore' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, failure conditions, permissions required, or idempotency. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 14-word sentence that delivers the core purpose concisely with no fluff. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

Despite low complexity and full schema coverage, the description omits the return value, success/failure indicators, and error conditions. Without an output schema, the agent lacks critical information about what happens after a restore.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'botid' and 'deletedid'. The phrase 'by its deletion record ID' is redundant. Thus, no extra value is added.

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 uses a specific verb 'restore' and clearly identifies the resource 'soft-deleted command' and the context 'back into the bot's active commands'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recover_deleted_bot' and 'delete_commands' by focusing on command recovery.

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 usage for restoring soft-deleted commands but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No exclusions or context boundaries are provided.

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