recover_device

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: the operation restores a soft-deleted entity and is constrained by a recovery window. It also explicitly calls out the permission requirement, which helps an agent plan authorization. Minor omissions like failure behavior are acceptable given the low complexity.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the most important constraint (recovery window) are front-loaded, and the permission requirement is included without redundancy.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what it does, the precondition, and the time constraint. It could mention what happens outside the recovery window or whether the operation is reversible, but those are not essential for a simple recovery call.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for device_id. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the full semantic burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Recover'), a specific resource ('soft-deleted device/resource'), and a key scope ('within the recovery window'). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which offer a recover action, and pairs naturally with delete_device.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: only for soft-deleted devices/resources and only within the recovery window. It also notes the write-permission requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none exist among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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