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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds the meaningful state change (a soft-delete is being reversed), but says nothing about failure behavior when the form is not deleted, permissions required, or whether associated answers are restored.

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 and no redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits outcome information an agent would want: what the restored form's state is afterward, whether it errors on a non-deleted id, and whether related records come back with it. Annotations cover safety, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents formId as an integer. The description does not add any constraint the schema lacks, such as whether the id must reference an already-deleted form. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('brings back') and resource ('a deleted anamnesis form'), with ownership scope ('of the trainer'). It does not distinguish this from sibling restore tools (restore_assessment, restore_program, restore_workout) or from the adjacent update_anamnesis_form, but the resource name makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_anamnesis_form or get_anamnesis_form, nor any stated precondition (e.g. that the form must currently be deleted, or how to discover deleted form IDs via list_anamnesis_forms). The agent is left to infer the entire invocation context.

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