restore_requirement

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. The description adds that the requirement is fully recovered with properties and associations intact, which is useful context, but it does not clarify the destructive or idempotent aspects, so partial credit.

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 action and condition. No wasted words; the outcome sentence adds useful detail without bloat.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisite (previously deleted), and outcome (fully recovered). Missing details like return format or error behavior are minor given the rich annotations, but it could say more about permissions or side effects.

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 coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should compensate. It only says 'using its unique identifier', which restates the schema's 'The requirement identifier' and does not explain the nested path object or add format/usage details.

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 requirement') and scopes it to previously deleted items from the trash. This clearly distinguishes it from get/put/delete/post requirement 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?

Clearly states the condition for use: the requirement must be previously deleted and in the trash, and it needs the unique identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so not a 5.

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