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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful preview-then-confirm workflow and the Trash origin, which is behavioral context not conveyed by the annotations alone.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and then the critical confirm workflow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior is simple and the annotations plus schema cover safety and parameters; the description closes the remaining gap by explaining the preview/confirm gate. Minor omission of any return-value or error context keeps it from a 5.

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%, so brand, confirm, and article_id are already fully documented in the schema, including confirm's preview/precedent semantics. The description only restates confirm: true and adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (bring back an article from the Trash) and links it to the inverse operation by name (one deleted with delete_article). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like delete_article and draft_article without needing their schemas.

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 a clear usage protocol: 'Preview first; confirm: true restores.' This tells the agent the required call sequence. It lacks explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the deletion/trash context implicitly scopes usage well.

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