gateway_knowledge_document_restore

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect: the current version is archived before the restore. This is valuable because it warns the agent that the operation mutates state beyond simply replacing the document. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the archive-first behavior is the most important behavioral trait.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the key side effect. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description explains the core operation and the archive side effect, but with 0% parameter coverage and no mention of the 'space' parameter, an agent may not know how to scope the restore. It is adequate for a simple two-required-parameter tool but leaves the optional parameter undocumented.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'retained document version' and 'current version', which clarifies the role of version_id and the document parameter, but it does not explain the optional 'space' parameter at all. With 0% coverage and 3 parameters, the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('retained document version'), and adds a key behavioral detail: it archives the current version first. This distinguishes it from gateway_knowledge_trash_restore (trash restore) and gateway_knowledge_document_versions (listing versions), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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: use when you need to restore a retained document version. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like gateway_knowledge_trash_restore for trashed documents. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but exclusions are absent.

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