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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the modifier-suppression burden is lifted. The description adds the valuable 30-day retention constraint, but says nothing about what happens to already-active items, whether a 50-item batch is all-or-nothing, or what restore of a 'version' means.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trigger condition comes first. It is efficient, though one more clause on the required item shape would have been cheap and useful.

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 annotations but no output schema, the description provides the recovery window but omits how to supply the items, the batch limit, and the outcome of a partial or failed restore. Adequate to select the tool, thin on how to call it correctly.

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 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter. It does not tell the agent that each item requires both 'kind' and 'id', that the batch caps at 50, or that 'kind' must be one of eight enumerated types. The schema's enum partially self-documents, but the description compensates for none of the gap.

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 clear action (restore) and a scoped resource (items from Recently deleted, within 30 days), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not differentiate from siblings such as list_deleted or delete_items, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this area of functionality.

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?

The description leads with an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user wants something back from Recently deleted.' The 30-day window adds a further qualifier for when this applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use list_deleted first to find IDs) or stating when not to use it.

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