Restore layer template

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true; the description supplements this with two real behavioral facts: the template does not regain default status, and the call returns the template. It does not cover error behavior when the id exists but is not deleted, name-collision handling, or permission requirements, so disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by provenance and the important caveat. The parenthetical is a little awkwardly worded ('list_layer_templates deleted or list_deleted'), but nothing is wasted.

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, non-destructive restore with a thin annotation set and no output schema, the description covers action, id source, a key state caveat, and the return value. Remaining gaps are minor edge-case behaviors rather than anything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter already fully documented in the schema, the baseline is 3. The description's note about where the id comes from mirrors the schema's own 'Layer template id (list_layer_templates)' hint rather than adding new meaning, and it does not clarify format or validation.

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 a clear verb-plus-resource combination ('Bring back a deleted layer template') that tells an agent exactly what the operation does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling purge_layer_template, which is the permanent-removal counterpart an agent might confuse it with.

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 description gives the precondition ('a deleted layer template'), points to both places to obtain the required id ('list_layer_templates deleted or list_deleted'), and states a key post-condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (for example, when to prefer purge over restore), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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