restore_test_plan

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful precondition hint by specifying the plan must be archived, but says nothing about the result (whether the restored plan is returned), what happens if the plan is not archived, or auth requirements. A 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 with zero filler; the core action and object come first and the parenthetical disambiguation is the only extra clause. Nothing in it needs to be cut.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin. Missing behavioral details an agent would want for a restore operation -- preconditions (must be archived, not purged), failure behavior, and whether the restored entity is returned -- leave it at minimum viable.

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 exists and the schema documents it fully ('Test plan UUID'), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no extra detail about the identifier, which is fine but earns only the baseline.

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 ('test plan'), and clarifies that the target is an archived/deleted plan. An agent can distinguish it from create_test_plan or delete_test_plan, though the description never names the sibling it is most easily confused with, purge_test_plan, which is a materially different operation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Restore' plus '(deleted)' suggests this is the undo path for an archived plan. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. that permanently purged plans cannot be restored, or how it differs from purge_test_plan), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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