GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode

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 mentions 'delegated restore' and 'user code', hinting at an authentication/authorization flow, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether this initiates a restore or just provides a code, expected response format, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool involving Entra ID operations.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 (Entra ID restore operations), no annotations, no output schema, and a poorly documented input schema (0% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the restore context, what the user code is used for, or the expected outcome, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'body', which is a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., tenant details, restore scope), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the parameter entirely 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 clearly states the action ('Get a user code') and the resource/context ('for delegated restore of Microsoft Entra ID items'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCodeState', but the verb 'Get' versus 'Get...State' provides some implicit distinction.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions 'delegated restore' but doesn't explain what triggers this need or how it relates to other restore-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore').

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