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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the operation 'Needs permission to change tasks,' an authorization prerequisite the agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the how-to-find-the-ref hint, then the permission caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with the annotations.

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 restore tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description supplies purpose, input sourcing, and an auth requirement. It omits error/return behavior, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 single 'ref' parameter has no description, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains that the ref identifies a deleted lesson exposed via list_lessons with deleted:true, but never states the ref's format or whether it is an id, slug, or key, leaving a real gap.

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+resource ('Restore a deleted lesson') and names the identifying parameter ('by ref'). It is clearly separable from sibling restore_* tools, which target decisions, items, and projects rather than lessons.

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 context for locating the input ('fenbs_list_lessons with deleted: true shows them'), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or the conditions under which restore fails, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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