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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the specific states it reverses, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any side effects or requirements beyond what the annotations imply. With annotations carrying the safety load, this is a reasonable score.

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 filler. It conveys the essential purpose immediately, exemplifying conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is barely adequate. It does not mention what the restore operation returns or any error conditions, but these are likely covered by the output schema. The description covers the key state context, making it complete enough without being verbose.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter is already described as 'Recommendation id'. The description does not add any extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('recommendation'), and specifies the states it applies to ('dismissed or blocked'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dismiss and block, making its purpose 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a recommendation was previously dismissed or blocked and needs to be re-enabled. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest score but provides clear contextual guidance.

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