research_undelete

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false mutation with destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add one useful fact beyond the annotations: the original archive state is restored along with the object. It does not say what happens if the id is not in the recycle bin, whether the call is idempotent, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence with the restore action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is lean and well-structured, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an undocumented required id, and no error semantics, this is too thin. An agent would not know what happens when the research is not in the recycle bin, whether archive state restoration can fail, or what the call returns.

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 study_id parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains that it must reference a previously deleted research. Only the name and the regex pattern in the schema convey format, so the description fails 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?

Specific verb (恢复/restore) plus resource (研究) plus scope (从回收区, 原归档状态), so the agent knows this pulls back a deleted research object and reinstates its prior archive state. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings like research_restore and research_unarchive, which is the only thing keeping it out of the top band.

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 phrase 从回收区 (from the recycle bin) implies this is the undo of research_delete and supplies implicit timing context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over research_restore or research_unarchive, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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