Restore a deleted decision by its reference on a fenbs board. Use when a decision was removed and must be brought back; requires permission to change tasks.
Restore a deleted decision by ref. fenbs_list_decisions with deleted: true shows them. Needs permission to change tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an auth prerequisite ('Needs permission to change tasks') and implies a mutation/recovery operation, but says nothing about idempotency, behavior on an invalid or non-deleted ref, or what the response contains.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the discovery hint, then the permission caveat. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, how to locate the target, and the permission requirement. It leaves return behavior and failure modes unexplained, but the core calling information is present.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'ref' parameter has no format or constraint documentation in the schema. The description's 'by ref' only marginally signals that ref identifies the decision; it adds no syntax, expected shape, or validity guidance to 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) and resource (deleted decision), which cleanly distinguishes it from fenbs_restore_item and fenbs_restore_project. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource specifier is unambiguous.
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 the discovery path explicitly: 'fenbs_list_decisions with deleted: true shows them', telling the agent how to find the ref it needs. It does not state when restore is inappropriate (e.g., ref not deleted) or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.