POST /hardware/{id}/restore

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it restores a deleted asset, but does not mention permissions, the confirm gate, or what happens if the asset is not deleted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence is generated-from metadata of marginal value, but overall it is efficiently sized.

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 mutation whose schema and annotations are rich, the description covers the core action. It omits important context such as confirmation requirements and preconditions (asset must be deleted), leaving the agent to rely entirely on schema and annotations.

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 explains both the id path parameter and the confirm write gate. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a deleted asset') and names the endpoint, so the agent can tell this is an undelete operation for hardware. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling restore tools like snipeit_gen_users_restore, but the hardware scope is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this versus delete/update or other restore operations, and no prerequisites are stated. The name and description imply restoring a deleted asset, but alternatives and exclusions are left to inference.

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