restore_issue

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/idempotent profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint false). The description adds outcome behavior — the issue returns with all properties and associations intact — which is useful, but it says nothing about required permissions or how it handles already-restored issues.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and the recovery-semantics sentence is genuinely informative. The opening two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Restore an issue' / 'Restore a previously deleted issue...'), which is minor 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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. With schema coverage at 0%, more on the identifier and on failure modes would round it out.

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?

There is one nested parameter (path.issueId) with 0% schema description coverage at the top level. The description's phrase 'using its unique identifier' minimally indicates the input is an identifier but adds no format, scope, or validation detail beyond the schema's integer type.

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 (issue) and clarifies the source state ('previously deleted issue from the trash'), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling restore_* tools beyond the differing resource noun.

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 by 'previously deleted issue from the trash', which signals the precondition that the issue must already be deleted. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as delete_issue or put_issue.

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