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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), yet the description still adds substantive behavior: the cascade scope of restored itinerary items, the exclusion of separately-deleted items, the two-phase preview/confirm flow, and the open-world side effect of re-adding the trip to connected calendars. No annotation is contradicted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its cascade scope, then the mode routing and confirmation gate. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential decision points: modes, confirmation gating, cascade behavior, and calendar side effects. Minor gaps remain around what the preview response contains, how far back 'recently deleted' reaches, and what happens on name conflicts, but nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters interact as a workflow: omitting trip_id switches the tool into list mode, and confirmed=true is what unlocks the mutation. The expected_deleted_at concurrency guard is only explained in the schema, not elaborated here.

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 ('Restore a deleted trip') plus a non-obvious scope: the itinerary items removed with the trip are also restored, while items deleted separately stay deleted. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like trip_delete and trip_create, and the cascade rule is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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 between the tool's two modes: call without trip_id to list recently deleted trips, call with trip_id to preview. It also states the gating condition for the actual mutation ('nothing changes until the user explicitly confirms and you call again with confirmed=true'), leaving nothing to inference.

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