Restore a rejected draft

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the operation endpoint, required scopes, data sensitivity, idempotency-key behavior, and workspace override behavior. It also states a concrete failure condition, giving an agent useful behavioral context for retries and error handling.

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 core purpose and failure condition are front-loaded, followed by operational details. It is appropriately sized for a mutation tool, though some scope and endpoint boilerplate could be trimmed without losing much.

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?

The description is complete for a four-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema. It covers the action, failure condition, authentication scopes, idempotency behavior, and workspace override, which are the key details an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description explains idempotencyKey and workspace override behavior, but those details largely repeat schema descriptions, and the required id parameter is not further described.

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 and resource: restoring a rejected review-queue item back to pending. It distinguishes the action from sibling review-queue tools such as approve and reject, so an agent can identify the correct tool 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 clearly indicates the intended scenario: restoring a rejected item to pending. It also gives an important failure condition for booking messages whose recovery window has passed, though it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives like approve or reject.

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