restore_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the team is fully recovered with all properties and members intact. It does not mention potential destructive side effects or conflicts, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Restore a team.' restates the tool name. The second sentence adds useful detail without excess.

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 simple restore tool with rich annotations and a single required parameter, the description provides sufficient context about what happens upon success. It does not describe edge cases or return values, but no output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so this is mostly complete.

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 0% at the top level, and the single teamId parameter has only a minimal schema description. The description adds 'using its unique identifier', which is somewhat redundant but slightly clarifies intent. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a single parameter with low schema coverage.

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 ('a team'), and clarifies it operates on previously deleted teams from the trash. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_team, post_team, and put_team without opening any schema.

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 team from the trash' clearly indicates when to use this tool, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Context is clear enough for an agent to understand it's the inverse of delete_team.

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