restore_credential

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds that the source is the trash, but says nothing about where the credential is restored to, whether it overwrites an existing credential, or what happens if the ref is not in the trash.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though it is terse to the point of omitting needed detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with annotations covering its safety profile, the core purpose is conveyed. However, the unusable 'ref' parameter and unstated preconditions/effects leave the definition only minimally 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 single required parameter 'ref' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'ref' is (credential ID, name, or path) or how to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('credential') with a qualifying scope ('from the trash'), letting an agent distinguish it from delete_credential, purge_credential, and list_trash. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool clearly applies to credentials previously moved to the trash, but the description names no alternative (e.g., purge_credential for permanent destruction) and states no precondition such as the credential first having to be deleted.

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