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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it stops at the workflow hint. It does not state whether restoring an active task errors, what permissions are required, whether the restore is reversible, or what side effects occur — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the usage instruction is front-loaded. The embedded tool/flag reference ('list_tasks onlyDeleted/includeDeleted') reads slightly compressed but remains decipherable.

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 tool with a full schema and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite workflow but omits error behavior and permission requirements. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% for both parameters, so board_id and task_number are already documented as scoped to a deleted task. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup details beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (recover deleted tasks), so the operation is unambiguous and distinguishable from delete_task and restore_board. It does not explicitly frame itself against those siblings, but the wording is clear enough to select correctly.

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 names the companion workflow: use list_tasks with onlyDeleted/includeDeleted to locate the task before restoring. That gives a concrete precondition for use, though it offers no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., what to do with an already-active task).

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