fenbs_restore_project

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 discloses the cascade effect on tasks, the name-collision refusal condition, and a permission requirement ('Needs permission to change tasks'). It does not describe the response or what happens to tasks that had been moved elsewhere, but the behavioral profile is unusually complete for an unannotated mutation.

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, each carrying distinct information: purpose/cascade, discovery path, and failure precondition. Front-loaded with the action and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the cascade semantics, lookup source, and refusal rule an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the result of a successful restore.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% -- the schema already documents 'The deleted project, by name.' The description adds no format, disambiguation, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Restore a deleted project') and immediately clarifies the cascade scope ('with it every task that was not moved elsewhere when it was deleted'). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling fenbs_restore_item, which restores an item rather than a project.

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?

Tells the agent where to discover restorable targets ('fenbs_list_projects shows deletedProjects') and gives an explicit precondition plus remedy path ('Refuses if a live project has the name -- rename that one first'). Both when-to-use and when-it-will-fail are covered.

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