restore_entity

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the restoration effect (re-link notes, restore thread) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error handling. The description adds some context beyond the name but is minimal.

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 very concise: two sentences plus an Args line. It front-loads the main action. However, the Args section redundantly repeats the parameter name already in the schema, which could be integrated for tighter structure.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and effect. However, it lacks information about return values (no output schema), error conditions, and the prerequisite that the entity was previously removed. Given the presence of many sibling tools, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'entity' as an 'Id' of the entity to restore, which clarifies the parameter's semantic role beyond the schema's type 'string'. However, it does not explain how to obtain or format the ID, nor does it address potential values.

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 clearly states the tool restores a removed entity, explicitly mentioning it re-links notes and restores the thread. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_entity, restore_note, and restore_stream.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., entity must be removed) or when not to use it. Sibling tools like promote_entity have different purposes, but no comparative advice is given.

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