restore_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: each request is a separate action with no idempotency key (so repeated calls are not deduplicated) and no historical beforeimage restoration (prior state cannot be recovered). It also flags a behavioral split around the authority cutover. The jargon makes it hard to parse, but real behavioral facts are present.

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?

Three sentences is a reasonable size, but the text is dense and abstract, and the purpose is not cleanly front-loaded—the useful core is padded with vague phrases. The cutover sentence in particular is hard to act on.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers non-idempotency and irreversibility but omits authorization requirements, how restored visibility interacts with relationships, and what the caller should expect on success. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents entity_id, entity_type, user_id, and reason. The description adds no syntax, format, or value-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening states a discernible verb+resource ("Restore visibility of an entity"), and siblings like delete_entity and restore_relationship make restoration a coherent family. However, the purpose is immediately buried under abstract jargon ("immutable lifecycle observation," "current factual reduction") that obscures what the tool actually does for a caller.

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 when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative is given. The cutover/legacy discussion describes internal system behavior rather than guiding the agent on when to choose restore_entity over siblings like merge_entities, correct, or restore_relationship.

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