profile_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses exactly what state is preserved (fingerprint, proxy binding, cookies, login state), asserts nothing is regenerated, and names both HTTP failure codes with their causes. It omits any mention of auth requirements or whether a restored profile auto-starts.

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?

The core guarantee is front-loaded in the first sentence, the non-obvious consequence (nothing regenerated, no logged-in account lost) follows immediately, and Args/Returns are compact. No sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, so the explicit 'Returns {name, engine, created}' plus the two named error cases supply everything needed to call and interpret the result. For a single-parameter mutation this is complete.

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 0% and the schema types 'name' as a bare string, so the description must carry the semantics — and it does, clarifying that it is 'the trashed identity's name' rather than a live profile name. That distinction is the whole correctness hinge for this parameter.

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 ('Bring an identity back from the recycle bin') and immediately disambiguates from the creation sibling with 'restoring is not re-creating'. An agent can distinguish this from profile_create or profile_start without opening any schema.

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 404/409 failure conditions and their remedies ('rename or delete that one first, then restore') give clear preconditions for success. What it lacks is an explicit pointer to the sibling that would supply a valid name — trash_list — leaving the agent to infer how to discover trashed identities.

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