restore_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful prerequisite, 'API token required,' and the restore action itself implies a state change from deleted to active. It does not disclose other side effects, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 purpose and followed by the auth requirement. No fluff. Slightly minimal, but appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 restore operation with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action and a key prerequisite. It could be more helpful by noting the expected result or that the user returns to active status.

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 the schema already documents the sole parameter. The description does not add details about the id format or source, but none are needed beyond the schema for this simple tool.

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 action ('Restore') and resource ('deleted user'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like update_user_role and approve_deletion_request.

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 context for use is implied by 'Restore a deleted user' — use when you need to undelete a user. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives or any when-not-to-use guidance.

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