restore_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool restores a soft-deleted agent, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if restoration affects related data), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key information ('Restore a soft-deleted agent account'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. 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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens upon restoration (e.g., if the agent becomes active again, returns to its previous state, or what the response includes). For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'apiKey' parameter documented as 'The API key of the deleted agent'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Restore') and the target resource ('a soft-deleted agent account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_agent' and 'register_agent' by focusing on restoration of deleted accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_agent' or 'get_agent_info', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the agent must be soft-deleted), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_agent' for modifying active agents. Without such context, users might misuse it for non-deleted accounts or overlook it when needed.

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