restore_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds that recovery is full ('all its properties, test cases, and subfolders intact'), but omits failure behavior or what happens if the folder is already restored.

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?

Only three sentences and front-loaded with the action. The opening 'Restore a folder.' is slightly redundant with the following sentence, but overall it is tight and readable.

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?

With annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't address permissions, whether restore can fail, or what an agent should expect in edge cases for a state-changing recovery operation.

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 reported as 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it only says 'using its unique identifier'. This loosely maps to the required testCaseFolderId nested parameter but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond a plain identifier.

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+resource ('Restore a folder') and clarifies the target is a 'previously deleted test case folder from the trash', which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_folder, put_folder, and get_folder. It just doesn't explicitly name those siblings for routing.

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 phrase 'Restore a previously deleted test case folder from the trash' implies the trigger condition (the folder was deleted), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative. Usage is only inferable.

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