restore_risk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false... rather readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the risk is 'fully recovered with all its properties and associations intact,' which tells the agent about the restore's completeness. It does not describe error behavior or permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and following with the effect. The opening 'Restore a risk. Restore a previously deleted risk...' repeats the verb, a minor redundancy, but overall it is tight.

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 declaring its safety profile and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what results from a successful call. Only edge cases (already-active risk, failure modes) are unaddressed.

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% at the top level, and the description only adds 'using its unique identifier,' which loosely restates the riskId parameter. It does not explain the nested 'path' wrapper object (path.riskId), which is the non-obvious part of the input structure, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (restore) plus resource (risk) and clarifies it acts on a previously deleted risk from trash, using its unique identifier. This clearly separates it from delete_risk/put_risk, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling restore tool.

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 'previously deleted risk from the trash' implies the precondition for use (the risk must have been deleted first), giving implied rather than explicit guidance. There is no statement about when not to use it or what to do if the risk was never deleted.

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