sprrint_projects_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the action mutates project state ('restore'), but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, side effects, or error behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverge, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description gives the minimal needed to understand the core operation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, so an agent must infer important details about permissions, error cases, and what restoration entails.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverge, and the description only says 'by numeric id', which merely repeats the integer type and 'Project Id' title already in the schema. It does not add meaningful parameter context such as where to find the id, constraints, or behavior when the id does not correspond to an archived project.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') with a clear resource ('an archived project') and identifies the selection key ('by numeric id'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling project operations like archive, delete, or update.

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 description implies usage context by stating it restores archived projects, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sprrint_projects_archive or sprrint_projects_list. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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