whodb_platform_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partly pre-carried. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it never purges data and it requires confirmation, plus that per-call workspace targeting does not change session defaults. The 'never purges data' phrasing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true (no hard contradiction, since the hint reflects mutation/reversibility, not data purge).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its safety constraint. The workspace sentence is useful but overlaps the schema's own description of the same opt-in behavior, so it is slightly redundant rather than pure waste.

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 3-parameter mutation with a nested workspace object and no output schema, the description covers action, safety, and targeting scope adequately. It leaves unstated whether dependents come back with the resource and how the confirmation step is actually performed, which would help an agent sequence the call.

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%, so the schema already documents id, resource, and every workspace subfield, including 'Does not change the default host'. The description's workspace sentence largely restates that structured content, adding no new syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond 'without changing defaults'.

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 and resource ('Restore a soft-deleted hosted resource') and qualifies the mechanism ('through the platform's existing restore path'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling discovery tool whodb_platform_deleted_resources and from whodb_platform_delete. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: only soft-deleted resources are eligible, and the description notes it 'still requires confirmation', hinting at a confirm flow. It never names the discovery step or the confirmation sibling as prerequisites/alternatives; that hinting only appears inside the schema's 'resource' description, not the tool description.

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