Restore a deleted user

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's main addition is the underlying REST endpoint POST /admin/users/{id}/restore. It does not disclose admin authorization requirements, error behavior for non-deleted users, or reversibility, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 description is short and front-loaded, but it wastes its first two lines saying the same thing ('Restore a deleted user' / 'Restore a previously deleted user'). The operation/endpoint line is the only additive content, making the redundancy noticeably unearned.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description contains enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The remaining gaps—admin auth requirement and behavior on non-deleted users—are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage (the schema documents 'id' as a uuid), the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the id beyond restating the operation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('restore') and resource ('a deleted user'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from delete_user_admin, create_user_admin, or update_user_admin by name. It does not, however, explicitly call out sibling differentiation or the admin scope that is only hinted at via the tag line.

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?

'Restore a previously deleted user' implies applicability (the user must already be soft-deleted) but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives. An agent gets no guidance on what condition must hold before invoking or how this differs from related restore tools like restore_assets or restore_trash.

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