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

Annotations already declare a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the bar is lowered. The description adds that the target task must be deleted, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions required, what happens if the task was never deleted or was purged, or whether the restore is reversible.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; every clause contributes. The action verb is slightly back-loaded after the 'Use this with' clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition supplies the key prerequisite workflow. Remaining gaps around failure modes and permissions are minor at this complexity level.

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 both parameters carry descriptions clarifying board scoping and that the task number refers to a deleted task. The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond that, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names the specific action (recover deleted tasks) and the tool name/title reinforce restore_task. It distinguishes itself from restore_board by implication of 'tasks,' and from delete_task by direction, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 states a concrete precondition workflow: pair with list_tasks using onlyDeleted/includeDeleted to find the deleted task first. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do for non-deleted tasks or whether archive exists as an alternative), but the usage context is clear.

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