restore_channel

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, required permissions, or that the restore operation changes the channel's state from archived to active. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which imply a non-read-only but non-destructive operation, but the description itself adds no additional transparency beyond the annotation.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It opens with a single-sentence purpose, followed by a clear parameter breakdown for workspace_id. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity of the tool (two simple string parameters and a straightforward action), the description is mostly adequate. However, the missing explanation for channel_id and the lack of any mention of the return value or expected outcome slightly reduce completeness. The provided workspace_id hint is helpful but insufficient to make the tool fully self-contained.

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?

Only workspace_id is explained in the description, with guidance to obtain IDs from list_workspaces(). The channel_id parameter is completely undefined; its role as the target channel identifier is not explicitly stated. This leaves one of two parameters semantically incomplete, reducing overall clarity for parameter usage.

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 tool's function: restoring a previously archived channel. It is concise and distinguishes the action from other channel operations like create, update, archive, or delete. The sibling list includes archive_channel and restore_channel, making the 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 gives a helpful hint for the workspace_id parameter, directing users to list_workspaces() to find valid IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other restore methods (e.g., restore_category, restore_hub_profile) or conditions like 'only works for archived, not deleted channels'. This leaves some ambiguity for users to infer.

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