lakeview_dashboard_restore

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already indicate mutation. The description only restates 'Restore' without adding behavioral context like permissions needed or side effects. No contradiction, but minimal added value.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. Very concise but lacks some detail that could be included without verbosity, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, missing context about state preconditions (dashboard must be trashed) and error conditions makes it adequate but not fully complete for a simple tool.

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 100% with parameter description 'Trashed dashboard ID'. The tool description adds no extra explanation beyond the schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.

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 'Restore a trashed Lakeview dashboard' uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('trashed Lakeview dashboard'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like lakeview_dashboard_delete (destroys) and lakeview_dashboard_trash_list (lists trashed).

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 when a dashboard is in trash, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (dashboard must be trashed) or when not to use (e.g., if not trashed, restore may fail).

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