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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false and a title; the description carries the real behavioral load, disclosing that membership and contents are reinstated, that members are re-notified of the restore, and — critically — that cancelled invitations and the old join link are NOT restored. It also states the owner-only authorization requirement and the 30-day window, none of which is inferable from the annotations.

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 verb, resource, and the Slack disambiguation before any secondary detail. It is clause-dense with nested parentheticals, but each clause (window, owner-only, id source, what is and isn't restored) carries decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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 one-parameter mutation-ish restore with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: authorization, time limit, id provenance, restored state, side effects on members, and notable exceptions. No important behavior is left unstated.

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?

The schema already documents project_id at 100% coverage, including the same 'from list_deleted_shared_projects' provenance note the description repeats. The description adds no format, length, or lookup detail beyond that, so this sits at the baseline for a fully-covered single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore an AccountHub shared project') and immediately disambiguates the overloaded term with 'a group chat — NOT a Slack workspace', which matters in a sibling list full of Slack tools. An agent can distinguish it from delete_shared_project, update_shared_project, and manage_slack_channel without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: the caller must be the owner, the delete must be within 30 days, and the id must come from list_deleted_shared_projects — a direct pointer to the discovery tool. What is missing is an explicit statement of the failure case or which sibling to use when the project was not deleted by the caller, but the usage envelope is otherwise clear.

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