restore_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Restore' is consistent with a non-destructive write. The description adds a useful precondition (the category must have been archived) but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what happens to associated content. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one sentence plus a hint, front-loading the core action. It includes a practical pointer for workspace_id without any fluff or repetition. 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 mutation tool with three required parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. It fails to explain how to get channel_id and category_id, what the tool returns (though an output schema exists, its content is unknown), or what error conditions might arise (e.g., category not archived, insufficient permissions). An agent would have to guess or consult other tools to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id and points to list_workspaces() for valid IDs, but gives no guidance on channel_id or category_id—neither their format nor how to obtain them (e.g., via list_channels or list_categories). Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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'), the resource ('a previously archived category'), and the location ('inside a channel'). It is distinct from sibling tools like archive_category, delete_category, and restore_channel, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used to undo an archiving action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., restore_content, restore_channel). It gives no exclusions or conditions beyond the category being previously archived, and does not mention prerequisites like permission requirements.

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