restore_work_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful state fact that the target must be archived/deleted, but says nothing about what state the item returns to, whether it reappears in its original location, or what happens if the item was permanently purged — the one behavior an agent could get wrong.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by state and key; there is no filler or redundancy. Nothing in the sentence could be removed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is barely adequate. The key missing piece is the restore-vs-purge boundary and error behavior for non-archived or purged IDs, which the description does not address even though no output schema exists to explain outcomes.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Work item UUID'), so the schema fully carries the semantics. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that; it does not clarify format, whether non-deleted IDs are accepted, or whether an archived ID differs from an active one.

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) plus the object state it acts on (archived/deleted work item) and the lookup key (by ID). An agent can distinguish it from delete_work_item and update_work_item, though the description never clarifies how it differs from purge_work_item, which is the genuinely ambiguous neighbor.

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 implied by the phrase 'restore an archived (deleted) work item' — an agent can infer it applies only to items already in the deleted state. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of preconditions (e.g. item must not have been purged), and no referenced alternative.

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