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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the cascading effect on tasks, the exact refusal condition with a resolution step, and an auth requirement (permission to change tasks) — none of which appear in the annotation block. The non-idempotent, non-destructive hints are consistent with the described behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and cascade, followed by discovery, precondition, and auth. No filler and every clause carries operational meaning.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the cascade behavior, the refusal path, discovery via the list tool, and the permission requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('The deleted project, by name.'). The description's mention of name conflicts reinforces that the parameter is a name rather than an id, but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 project) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_* tools by describing the cascade: every task not moved elsewhere is restored too. An agent can tell this apart from fenbs_restore_item or fenbs_restore_decision 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 clear usage context (deleted projects surfaced by fenbs_list_projects), a pre-condition (refuses if a live project holds the name), and a remediation path (rename first). It stops short of naming fenbs_rename_project explicitly, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to reach for.

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