Restore soft-deleted entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the state change ('clears their deleted flag') and a side effect ('The running app refreshes automatically'), which tells the agent no restart is needed. However, it omits permission requirements, whether restore is idempotent, and what happens on partial failure across multiple targets.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how to find inputs, and the observable side effect. The core action is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 single-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, the essential context is present: the effect, the discovery path, and the user-visible consequence. The remaining gap is feedback-related — it doesn't say what is returned (e.g., a restored count) or how invalid/unknown target IDs are reported, which matters for a batch operation.

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% — the `targets` array is fully documented with the `<type>:<id>` format and the five allowed types. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the discovery hint, so baseline 3 applies: the schema does the work and the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Brings soft-deleted history entries back') and parenthetically explains the mechanism ('clears their deleted flag'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eve_recent (listing), eve_get (fetching), and eve_search.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the right discovery path: 'Find candidates with eve_recent's deleted option.' That tells the agent the prerequisite step before calling this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as what to do if the entry was never deleted or hard-deleted, but the core when-to-use is clear.

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