Restore an archived customer need to bring it back into active workflow for continued tracking and resolution.
Restore an archived customer need
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer need ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as authentication requirements or side effects.
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 consists of a single sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, good schema coverage, annotations, and output schema), the brief description is nearly complete. It could mention that the action reverses an archive, but overall adequate.
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 sole parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any further meaning or usage instructions beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'Restore' and the resource 'archived customer need', making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like linear_archiveCustomerNeed and linear_deleteCustomerNeed.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_archiveCustomerNeed. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.