restore_form

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: permission requirements and an error condition when the form is not in the trash. It also makes the inverse relationship to delete_form explicit, which helps the agent predict 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 description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then packs in the permission and error conditions without bloating the text.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, this description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, preconditions, permissions, and a failure case, giving an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single formId parameter, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the semantic link to the trash but does not add detail beyond the schema's 'form UUID' description.

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 action ('Restore a form from the trash') with the resource scope ('in the current team') and explicitly frames it as 'undo delete_form'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_form, update_form, and duplicate_form.

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?

It provides clear conditions for use: the form must be in the trash, within the current team, and only the form owner or team owner can perform the restore. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the 'undo delete_form' linkage gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use it.

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