Restore finding

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only mutation. Beyond that, the description adds the meaningful outcome that the finding reappears in default views, which is the key behavioral effect. It does not cover permissions or return behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and its effect with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 restore operation whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not mention the return value, though no output schema exists and this is a low-complexity call.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single 'id' parameter, the schema already documents everything needed. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the 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 and resource ('Restore a previously dismissed finding') and describes the resulting state, so the action is unambiguous. It does not name the sibling dismiss_finding, but the inverse relationship is obvious from the resource and the 'previously dismissed' qualifier.

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 'so it appears in default views again' implies when this is used (reversing a dismissal), which is adequate context. However, it never names dismiss_finding or states a when-not condition, leaving the routing between the two siblings to inference.

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