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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, which says little about what this write does. The description adds the crucial cascade behavior (connections and opportunities are restored along with the page), the not_found failure mode for already-live or nonexistent pages, and the needs_confirmation return path — all behavior beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action and its cascade, the use condition, and the failure/confirmation semantics. Front-loaded with the operation before the routing advice.

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 restore semantics, cascade effects, error case, and confirmation path, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is that the needs_confirmation follow-up (gathering approval) is not spelled out in the description, though the approvalId schema field does cover it.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value on top by explaining where pageId originates (a prior compass_pages_delete or the trash) rather than just 'Id of the deleted page'. It does not explain the approvalId follow-up flow, which the schema carries alone.

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 ('puts a trashed page back on the map') and goes further by naming the scope of restoration — the connections and opportunities that the delete removed. An agent can distinguish this from compass_pages_delete and compass_pages_get 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?

Explicitly says when to use it (user wants a deleted page back) and where the pageId comes from (the earlier delete call or the Compass trash). It also implies when not to use it via the not_found conditions, but never names an alternative tool or states an exclusion rule directly.

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