task_restore

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

Annotations already carry the key safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description need not restate those. It adds the useful inverse relation to task_delete, but does not disclose consequences such as whether subtasks/comments are restored, error behavior for missing ids, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence, 'Restore a task removed with task_delete,' contains the action, resource, and precondition with zero filler. No restructuring or trimming is needed.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required id, no nested objects, no output schema) and the annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only finer behavioral details like return value or effects on dependent objects, which are minor for this operation.

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 provides only 'id: integer' with no description, and the description bridges that gap by implying the id identifies a task that was removed with task_delete. For a single-parameter tool this is sufficient to infer the parameter's meaning, though it does not spell out the id semantics explicitly.

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 immediately states a clear verb and object: 'Restore a task...'. It also names the sibling operation it reverses ('removed with task_delete'), which distinguishes it from other restore/crud tools like comment_restore without requiring schema inspection.

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 phrase 'removed with task_delete' gives a clear precondition and when to use the tool: to undo a prior task_delete. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the task/comment split among siblings makes the intended use unambiguous.

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