restore_task

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

The description reveals the underlying mechanism ('detaching the removal label'), which clarifies that removal is label-based and reversible rather than destructive. This adds value beyond the idempotentHint annotation, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key mechanism. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and idempotentHint annotation, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be more explicit about edge cases, such as restoring a task that is not currently removed, but overall it is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage for the single required parameter task_id, including its type and a numeric description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('restore') and resource ('task'), and explicitly frames the operation as undoing remove_task, which distinguishes it from the sibling remove_task tool. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 the tool: after remove_task has been applied and you want to reverse it. It names the related sibling indirectly ('remove_task') but does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative restore paths.

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