Restore Team Entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by identifying this as a soft-delete reversal (data still exists) and naming the TEAM_DB_PATH dependency, but it says nothing about what happens if the entry is not deleted or is already restored, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the prerequisite second. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 0 required parameters across three loosely-typed identifiers (entry_id as number|string, project_number as number|string) the agent has no way to know which combination restores the intended entry. The description should have resolved that ambiguity or named the sibling that lists deleted entries.

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 only 33% — only workspace_id is documented, while entry_id and project_number have no description anywhere. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a tool where zero parameters are marked required and the agent cannot tell which identifier is needed.

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 team entry") and the "soft-deleted" qualifier clarifies it is an undelete, not a general write. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling restore_entry or point at team_list_deleted_entries as the way to find a candidate entry, so the team vs. non-team split is left to the name prefix.

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?

"Requires TEAM_DB_PATH" is a genuine usage prerequisite that tells the agent a configuration must be present. Beyond that there is no when-to-use guidance, no note that the entry must currently be soft-deleted, and no routing to restore_entry (non-team) or team_list_deleted_entries for discovery.

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