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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it restores readability, re-exposes references, and returns 404 when the item is not currently deleted. It does not cover permissions or other failure modes, but it adds clear value beyond 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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core action and effect front-loaded and no wasted text. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and one important error condition. It could be slightly more complete by explaining itemId sourcing or permission requirements, but it is largely sufficient.

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 has a single required parameter, itemId, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions itemId, its format, or where to obtain it, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ("Restores") and resource ("soft-deleted item") and explains the resulting state change. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the operation is clear enough to distinguish from delete/get/update.

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 404 condition implies the tool should be used only when an item is currently soft-deleted, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as cms_items_delete, cms_items_get, or cms_items_update.

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