cdp_restore_mailer_account

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 mentions 'soft-deleted' and implies a mutation (restore), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the restore is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Restore a soft-deleted mailer account') and includes the API endpoint for technical context. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a mutation tool but lacks depth. It specifies the action and resource but omits important context like error conditions, success indicators, and parameter meanings, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no semantic information about the 'id' (e.g., that it refers to a mailer account ID) or 'tenant_id' parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves both parameters poorly understood.

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 clearly states the verb ('Restore') and resource ('a soft-deleted mailer account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_restore_emailable_page' or 'cdp_restore_mailer_subuser', which share the 'restore' action but target different resources.

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, such as 'cdp_update_mailer_account' or 'cdp_create_mailer_account', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a soft-deleted account ID. It lacks context for distinguishing from other restore or mailer-related tools in the sibling list.

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