Restore Change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that the change comes back from trash; it says nothing about required permissions, whether the change returns to its original location, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the change is not in trash.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, wasting no words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter and the effect of a successful or failed restore. It covers only the bare minimum concept and omits the preconditions and results an agent needs.

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 schema documents only that change_id is a positive integer/string but adds no meaning. The description never mentions the parameter or clarifies what identifier is expected, so it does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (change) with a scope qualifier ('from trash'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like trash_change (its inverse) or the analogous restore_request, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'from trash' weakly implies the tool is the undo for trash_change, but no alternative or precondition (e.g. the change must currently be trashed) is stated.

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