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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact restore scope (versions, files, workspace, sharing) and a non-obvious irreversible side effect: social posts cancelled at delete time stay cancelled despite destructiveHint=false. It also states the auth requirement and the return shape, which the agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the side effect, then the prerequisite and sourcing hint. Every clause carries distinct information with no 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 single-parameter restore tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, side effects, permission requirements, and argument sourcing. Nothing needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single projectId parameter is already documented as 'an id from list_trash'. The description's 'take the id from list_trash' merely repeats the schema, adding no format or syntax detail, 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 (restore) and resource (project) and immediately scopes it to the 'Recently deleted' state, distinguishing it from delete_project, show_project, and restore_version. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the argument ('take the id from list_trash') and states the permission prerequisite ('Requires edit access, as delete_project does'), naming a sibling for comparison. It does not, however, contrast itself with restore_version, which restores a version rather than a whole trashed project.

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