restore_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description states a 'restore' action, implying mutation and potential destruction of some prior state (e.g., it may undo a deletion), but does not clarify side effects, failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible. No authorization requirements, error conditions, or concurrency issues are mentioned.

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 only 8 words in a single sentence, making it very concise. There is no wasted text, and the core action is front-loaded. However, the brevity may leave out important context, which is penalized elsewhere but not in conciseness. One could argue for a 5, but the lack of structure (e.g., no bullet points or callouts) for a tool in a large sibling set reduces usability slightly.

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?

Given the context (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and 22 sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not reference the output schema, nor does it distinguish this tool from similar operations like 'restore_dataset'. With no annotations, the description should cover behavior more thoroughly. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about error states, prerequisites, and return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the optional renaming context ('optionally under a new name'), which clarifies the purpose of new_name beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on valid formats for new_name (e.g., is there a length limit, characters allowed?) or whether dataset_id and category_id must refer to existing entities. The schema already describes all parameters, so the description's added value is marginal.

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 'Restore a category, optionally under a new name.' This clearly indicates the verb (restore) and the resource (category), and adds the optional renaming capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_category' and 'edit_category' implicitly, but does not explicitly contrast with 'restore_dataset' or 'add_categories', missing a clear differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the category must be deleted or in a specific state), no context about required dataset ownership, and no indication of when the optional new_name parameter is appropriate. With 22 sibling tools, including restore_dataset and delete_category, this omission is significant.

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