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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that this reverses deletion by restoring an assessment from the deleted list, but it does not mention permissions, failure conditions, or post-restore effects.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a one-parameter restore tool, this is appropriately concise.

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?

The description plus annotations and schema are enough to invoke the tool, but it leaves gaps around how it differs from unarchive_assessment and what the restore operation returns. With no output schema, a brief note on the result would improve completeness.

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?

The single assessmentId parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says it comes from list_deleted_assessments. The description repeats that same source without adding format, constraints, or validation details, so baseline 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?

States a specific action ("Brings back") and resource ("assessment") and ties it to deleted assessments from list_deleted_assessments. It is understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling unarchive_assessment.

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?

Usage is implied by "from list_deleted_assessments," which tells the agent the assessment must first be found in the deleted list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to unarchive_assessment.

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