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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description does real work: it discloses the broad blast radius (all hidden rows come back, including captions hidden by delete_element) and the absence of per-row control. It doesn't say whether the restore is itself reversible or what the response contains, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the counter-intuitive scope correction, and the missing-granularity warning. The most surprising fact (EVERY hidden row) is capitalized and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, side effects on unrelated elements, and the lack of per-row control. Only reversibility/idempotency of the restore itself is left unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter (project_id) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Un-hide') and resource ('transcript rows that were soft-deleted'), then immediately corrects the misleading 'fillers' name by declaring the scope is EVERY hidden row. An agent can tell this apart from remove_fillers and delete_element 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?

Clear about when to use it (reversing soft deletes) and names delete_element as the operation being undone, plus 'there is no per-row restore' closes off a granular alternative the agent might otherwise look for. It does not mention version-level siblings like restore_version, so it stops short of a full alternative map.

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