Restore task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a condition, without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., attempting to restore a non-soft-deleted task or outside the window), or any permission requirements. The description is minimal and leaves much unstated.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the operation described, even though it is under-specified in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema, and the description only states the action and a vague constraint. It does not clarify the parameters' purposes, what happens if the task is not in the restore window, or any error handling. Given the minimal description and lack of annotations, an agent lacks sufficient context to use it reliably.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (task_id, source, idempotency_key). It provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess their purposes. This is a significant gap since the description is the only source of parameter intent.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action (restores), the resource (soft-deleted task), and a constraint (within restore window). It is distinct from sibling operations like delete_task or create_task, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 description implies usage for restoring soft-deleted tasks but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'within restore window' hints at a condition but does not explain when it applies or what happens if it is not met.

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