seo_restore_cluster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses the state change (from rejected to pending_review), but does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or behavior if the cluster is not currently rejected. This is acceptable for a simple state-change tool but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with a simple state transition and only two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and outcome. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., cluster must be rejected) explicitly, but that is strongly implied. There is no output schema, so behavior is sufficiently clear for the described action.

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%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. The schema descriptions for clusterId and brandId are as informative as or more informative than the tool description.

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 identifies the exact resource ('a rejected cluster') and the target state ('back to pending_review'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like seo_approve_cluster or seo_reject_cluster by describing the state transition.

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 the correct usage context: when you have a rejected cluster and want to bring it back for review. It states the outcome ('so it can be approved again'), which hints that approval is a separate step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use seo_approve_cluster to directly approve'.

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