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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance beyond them: if the original slug is now taken, the restored deck gets a new slug. Auth/permission requirements and failure modes are not covered, so not a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, operation stated first, then the caveat that affects the caller's expectations. 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, yet the description covers the critical non-obvious return behavior (possible new slug) and the input's provenance. For a single-parameter restore tool this is close to complete, with only error/permission cases unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It names trash_id and identifies its source tools, which is meaningful semantics the schema lacks, though it doesn't specify the id's format or whether it expires.

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 ('Restores a deck from the trash') with the keying parameter, which cleanly separates it from delete_deck, list_trash, and get_deck among the siblings.

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?

It tells the agent where the required input comes from ('from delete_deck or list_trash'), which is the main precondition for calling it. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that only trashed decks can be restored or what happens if the deck was never trashed.

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