restore_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the operation's effect (overrides deletion, makes visible, immutable) but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or response format.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The operation is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left uncertain about the return value, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., entity must be deleted). Additional context on behavior would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds audit context ('reason' for audit) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Restore a deleted entity'), the mechanism ('creates a restoration observation'), and the result ('becomes visible'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_entity' and 'restore_relationship' by focusing on entity restoration.

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 usage after deletion and mentions 'immutable restoration for audit,' which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like 'restore_relationship.'

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