restore_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the resulting state depends on the record type (rejected → draft, deleted → approved). It still omits permissions, reversibility, and side effects, so it adds real but partial context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its outcome, then the parameter list, with no filler. The two-part structure is compact and readable.

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 single-parameter restore tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and no annotations, the description covers the key outcome states adequately. Only auth/permission context is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the description merely restates the parameter as 'the record's id', which duplicates the schema field's own title 'Experience Id' without adding format, source, or lookup meaning. The agent gains nothing beyond the structured field.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('restore a soft-deleted record') and clarifies scope by describing the two cases handled (rejected draft and deleted experience). It implicitly contrasts with the permanent-delete sibling purge_experiences, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'soft-deleted record' and the two restoration cases, giving the agent enough to know this is the undo path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of purge_experiences or delete_experience as alternatives.

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