restore_hub_profile

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

The description states the action but does not detail side effects such as whether related content or memberships are also restored. Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, which are consistent, but the description alone provides limited behavioral detail.

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 concise, with no filler. The workspace_id hint is placed efficiently and directly supports the caller.

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 simple restoration action, the description provides enough context to understand the core operation and the workspace_id parameter. Output schema presence reduces the need to explain return values, though error conditions or prerequisites are not mentioned.

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 given meaningful guidance ('get available IDs from list_workspaces()'), while hub_profile_id is left without description. Since schema descriptions cover 0% of parameters, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter context.

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: restoring a previously archived hub profile, which distinguishes it from restore_content, restore_channel, and restore_category. The resource and verb are specific and 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 phrase 'previously archived' implies this tool is for archived hub profiles, giving basic usage context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like archive_hub_profile or restore_content, but the sibling names and the purpose make the intended use reasonably clear.

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