restore_test_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that all test cases, results, and config are recovered, which is useful, but omits critical behavior like authorization needs, whether a restore can be repeated, or if the ID must be valid or if it creates a new entry.

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 primary action and the restoration context. The second sentence adds value by specifying what is recovered, though it could be tighter.

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 tool has a nested schema and no output schema. The description explains the effect of recovery but leaves gaps around permissions, trash constraints, and whether the operation is reversible. It is adequate but not thorough for a mutation that affects linked test data.

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% for the single parameter, but the description compensates by explaining that the testRunId is a unique identifier for the deleted test run and that it is required to locate it in trash. It does not add syntax details like integer type or format, but the usage context is clear.

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?

Specific verb (restore) plus resource (test run), and elaborates that restoration is from trash using a unique identifier. Distinguishes from sibling delete_test_run and get_test_run without ambiguity.

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?

States the action is for previously deleted runs, which implies the when-to-use. However, no explicit alternatives are named (e.g., restore_test_case) and no prerequisites such as required permissions are stated.

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