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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, openWorld true, non-idempotent false), and the description adds real context on top: owner-only authorization, trash-list resolution semantics, and a 404 if the world was already purged. It omits what happens on a repeat call or when multiple trashed worlds share a name.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the core recovery action and its time-limited nature front-loaded before the identifier guidance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: identifier options, permission requirement, and failure mode. Non-idempotent retry behavior and name-collision handling remain unexplained but are minor.

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%, so baseline is 3; the schema already documents `guid`, `name` lookup, and the `world` alias with its conflict-refusal rule. The description adds some resolution nuance but never mentions the third `world` parameter, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 and resource ('Recover a soft-deleted world') plus the scope boundary ('before it's permanently purged'). It is clearly separable from siblings like world.trash, world.undraft, and world.list.

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 routes the agent to the right identifier source: `name` resolved against the trash list, or `guid` 'e.g. from world.trash', and warns that a trashed world is NOT in world.list. It also states the owner-only precondition and the 404 outcome, though it never names a competing alternative tool (e.g. world.undraft) to disambiguate against.

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