Restore deleted shift occurrences

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is reasonably compact. However, the note about a sample response self link saying 'exclusionss' and the cryptic 'See C11' add noise without helping an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description covers the endpoint, required confirmation, body fields, authentication/write opt-in, and potential side effects. There is no output schema, so return-value details are absent, but the reference link and generic body schema provide enough for a destructive restore operation.

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 75%, and the description adds value by naming the body fields startDate and endDate, which the generic body schema does not specify. It also reinforces the confirm:true requirement. Path parameters groupID and shiftID are self-explanatory from the endpoint and schema.

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 ('deleted shift occurrences') and includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like xmatters_get_deleted_shift_occurrences because the verb signals mutation rather than retrieval.

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 implies when to use the tool: when deleted shift occurrences need to be restored. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using xmatters_get_deleted_shift_occurrences first to identify which occurrences to restore.

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