storyline_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the state transition from archived to active, but does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur on related data (e.g., brief, line items).

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the exact purpose without any redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description states the core action clearly. However, it omits any information about return values, post-restoration state, or potential side effects, and with no annotations, the operational context is only partially complete.

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%, and the schema already documents storylineId and brandId. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Restore an archived storyline back to active state.' It clearly defines the action and the state transition, distinguishing it from other storyline_* tools like create, get, update, delete, and execute.

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 its use case: when a storyline is archived and needs to be active again. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other restore tools (e.g., seo_restore_cluster, restore_lp_version) or prerequisites like confirming the storyline is indeed archived.

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