ncloud_restore_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the restored copy is available for a specified number of days. However, it omits other traits like whether the restore is asynchronous, whether it incurs cost, or whether it affects the original archived object, and it doesn't describe any return value or error conditions.

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 sentences, zero filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence explains the duration parameter. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what triggers the restore, what makes it accessible, and the time-bound nature. The absence of notes about async behavior or permissions is a minor gap, but the tool is simple enough that this is reasonably complete.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptive text for bucketName, objectName, and days. The description reiterates the meaning of days ('available for the specified number of days') but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') with a clear resource ('an object stored in Archive class') and states the outcome ('make it accessible'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_object which retrieve accessible objects, and ncloud_copy_object which copies objects.

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 explicitly conditions the use case: objects stored in Archive class. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus other object operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_object for objects not in Archive', which would strengthen guidance.

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