restore_published_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('Restore') and outcome ('ACTIVE status'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the level is already active. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error conditions, side effects) and output format. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps in understanding the full context of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'levelId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is elevated. No additional semantics are needed, so a score of 4 reflects adequate coverage without redundancy.

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The description clearly states the specific action ('Restore') and target resource ('unpublished marketplace level'), specifying the outcome ('back to ACTIVE status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'unpublish_level' (which changes status to unpublished) and 'publish_level' (which publishes a level), 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 implies usage when a level is unpublished and needs reactivation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'publish_level' for new publishing, 'create_level' for new levels). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the exact context.

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