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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating-but-safe profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether nested days/weeks/workouts come back with the program, whether a non-deleted or unknown programId errors out, or whether the restoration is immediate.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is appropriate for a single-parameter tool. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it earns only minimal credit here.

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 omits what the agent actually needs: whether descendant entities are restored, what happens on an invalid or non-deleted programId, and whether permissions or a specific program state are required. The definition is not sufficient to call confidently beyond the happy path.

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 the single required integer programId, so the schema already carries the parameter contract. The description adds no meaning about what ID is expected (e.g., a deleted program's ID from list_programs) beyond what is structured. 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?

States a specific verb plus resource and scope ('Brings back a program that was deleted'), so an agent can tell it apart from create_program or update_program. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related restore_workout or from get_program/list_programs, which the sentence could easily have anchored it against.

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 phrase 'that was deleted' weakly implies the target state, but there is no guidance on when to call it versus retrieving a program, no precondition that the program must actually be in a deleted state, and no mention of the obvious alternative path of recreating the program via create_program.

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