StartEntraIDTenantRestoreFromCopy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a significant mutation operation ('restore') but doesn't detail critical aspects such as required permissions, whether it's destructive to existing data, expected duration, rate limits, or what happens upon completion. This is a major gap for a high-impact tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from additional context to improve usability without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool's complexity (a restore operation with potential high impact), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter requirements, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 on its structure. The description adds no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., backup ID, tenant details, restore options), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and leaving parameters effectively 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 ('Start Microsoft Entra ID tenant restore') and the source ('from a copy backup'), which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it's somewhat vague about the exact nature of the restore process and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore' (without 'FromCopy'), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific variant.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore' or 'StopEntraIDTenantRestore' for context, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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