restore_profile

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

With no meaningful annotation coverage (all hints false), the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: cookies and sessions are restored, name collisions are resolved by renaming to 'name (2)', nothing is overwritten, and the response reports the final name. This is substantial transparency beyond a bare 'restore' statement.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the collision behavior and output. The most important safety detail ('nothing is overwritten') is front-loaded alongside the rename behavior.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the goal, the key edge case, and the fact that the response names the final profile. It stops short of spelling out error cases or explicitly telling the agent to find candidates via list_trash, so there is a small completeness gap.

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?

The single parameter is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, and the description adds no new parameter-format or constraint detail beyond referring to the profile by name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 description uses an explicit verb ('restore' / 'bring back') and target ('profile'), and specifies the source ('recycle bin') and scope ('with its cookies and sessions'). This makes it distinct from siblings like trash_profile and list_trash.

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 phrase 'Bring a profile back from the recycle bin' gives clear context for when to use this tool: recovering a previously trashed profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as what to do when the profile is not in the trash, which keeps it from a 5.

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