restore_application

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that this is a write. It does add the useful context that the target lives in the trash, but it never explains why this operation is flagged destructive (e.g., overwriting an existing application) or whether associations survive the restore.

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?

Two short sentences, but the first ('Restore an application.') is a pure restatement of the tool name and earns nothing. The second sentence carries all the actual content, so half the description is redundant padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say more about the result of a successful restore (returned object, whether the application reappears in the collection) and about permission requirements. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation on a nested-ID schema, the current coverage is adequate but thin.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level (the nested 'path' wrapper is undocumented), and the only parameter is a nested applicationId object. The description's 'using its unique identifier' partially compensates by confirming a single integer ID is required, but it adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema's own field 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 gives a specific verb (Restore) plus resource (application) and adds the source of the restore: 'a previously deleted application from the trash.' That is enough to distinguish it from delete_application, get_application, and put_application. It doesn't explicitly route against the sibling restore_* family, though those act on different entities, so confusion risk is minimal.

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 only implied: the phrase 'previously deleted application' tells the agent this applies to soft-deleted records. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how to find a deleted application's ID, and no note about prerequisites or failure states (e.g., what happens if the record was never deleted).

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