restore container

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

Annotations already convey the write/not-destructive nature, so the description adds value by disclosing that children are also restored ('applicable children'). This goes beyond the annotations, though the term 'applicable' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about recursion or scope.

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 sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains zero filler and conveys the essential action and scope, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the action and scope (children restoration) but leaves 'applicable' undefined, which could be clarified further. However, the core usage is clear and no major operational details are missing.

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 one required parameter (container_id) with no description, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly name container_id but the context ('Restore an archived Container') clearly implies the parameter is the container's identifier. The schema provides format (uuid), so the parameter is not ambiguous. The description adds the 'applicable children' nuance but not directly about the parameter.

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 tool restores an archived Container and its applicable children, using a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('Container'). It distinguishes from sibling restore tools targeting other entity types (e.g., restore_task, restore_collection) and from container operations like archive_container or delete_container.

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 implies use when a Container is archived and needs to be restored. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific wording and the 'archived' qualifier provide clear context. The lack of explicit alternatives is mitigated by the unambiguous entity focus.

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