restore_test_case

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and destructive profile, and the description adds meaningful postcondition detail: properties, associations, and historical results are restored intact. It does not explain permissions or failure behavior, but with annotation coverage the added context is useful.

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 first two sentences are partly redundant, with 'Restore a test case' immediately restated by 'Restore a previously deleted test case...'. The recovery postcondition sentence earns its place, but the opening could be merged to improve conciseness.

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 restore operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main outcome and source of the item. It is adequate, though it omits error cases and any required authorization context.

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 low, and the description only says the test case is identified by 'its unique identifier.' That maps to testCaseId but adds no format, nesting, or validation detail beyond the schema's own identifier field.

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 test case'), and further scopes it to a previously deleted test case from the trash. This distinguishes it from delete_test_case, get_test_case, and put_test_case without needing another 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?

Gives a clear condition: use when recovering a test case that was previously deleted and is in the trash. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the case already exists, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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