Restores a deleted task by ref, including its number, comments, followers, and links; files are not recovered. Requires permission to change tasks.
Restore a deleted task by ref, with its number, comments, followers and links (not its files, which went when it was deleted). fenbs_get_item on a deleted ref says it is deleted. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that number, comments, followers, and links are restored but files are permanently lost, and that the caller needs permission to change tasks. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.
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?
Front-loads the core action and packs substantive detail into three short sentences with little waste. The parenthetical about files is slightly clunky but earns its place by preventing a false expectation.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key risks (partial restoration, files lost, permission requirement) and a related diagnostic tool. It is nearly complete, lacking only success/failure behavior or what the returned state looks like.
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% and the single 'ref' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only says restoration is 'by ref', which conveys that ref identifies the deleted task but adds no format, lookup, or validity details beyond that minimal hint.
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 (a deleted task) and immediately scopes what restoration includes, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like fenbs_delete_item, fenbs_restore_project, and fenbs_restore_decision. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Clearly implies the use case (recovering a deleted task) and usefully notes that fenbs_get_item on a deleted ref reports it as deleted, which helps an agent confirm the preconditions before invoking. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or what happens if the ref is not deleted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.