ncloud_mailer_restore_template

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the restore operation, so there is no contradiction. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the API's legacy status, the migration-only restriction, and the hard availability window through Dec 2027, which an agent needs to know before relying on this tool.

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?

A single dense sentence delivers the deprecation context, the SENS alternatives, and the exact operation with its HTTP endpoint, with no filler. The long bracketed preamble does push the core verb ('Restore') to the end, a minor structural cost, but every clause 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 two-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive restore call, the description covers the essential invocation context: endpoint, legacy scope, availability window, and parameter mapping via the fully documented schema. The only real gap is the absence of any hint about the response/return value, which no output schema exists to provide either.

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% and both parameters are already fully documented — templateSid's purpose and region's enum values plus its defaulting behavior. The tool description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States the specific operation, 'Restore a soft-deleted mail template', and pins it to the exact endpoint PUT /template/{templateSid}/restoration. The verb+resource combination clearly differentiates it from sibling mailer operations like ncloud_mailer_delete_template, ncloud_mailer_get_template, and ncloud_mailer_create_template.

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?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which a restore operation honors, so there is no contradiction. The description adds real context beyond annotations: the API's legacy status, the merge date, the migration-only restriction, and the hard availability window — all useful for an agent deciding whether invocation will even succeed.

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