EntireUnstructuredDataShareRestore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions restoration to 'original or another location', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like permissions needed, data overwriting risks, or whether it's reversible. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies data.

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, efficient sentence that states the core action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (a restoration tool likely involving data mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying location options, failing to explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., source, destination, settings). This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 states the action ('Restore') and resource ('an entire file share'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'file share' is in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'EntireUnstructuredDataOSRestore' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to unstructured data and recovery (e.g., 'EntireUnstructuredDataOSRestore', 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount'), the description lacks context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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