POST /users/{id}/restore

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the user must be soft-deleted, but omits failure behavior (e.g. restoring a non-deleted user) and any confirmation requirement beyond what the schema states.

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, with the substantive purpose statement front-loaded. The second sentence is auto-generated provenance boilerplate ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation users-restore") that adds little but costs little.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needn't describe return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive write against a generated endpoint, it should mention the soft-delete precondition more explicitly as a call requirement and note what happens on a non-deleted ID.

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%: `id` is documented as "User ID of a deleted user" and `confirm` as the exact string "YES" gated by SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 soft-deleted user." This clearly separates it from the delete/update user siblings by naming the restore action and the soft-delete precondition. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite that the target user must currently be soft-deleted, and no alternative (e.g. snipeit_raw_request or a create-user path) if the user is hard-deleted. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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