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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful side effects: the original link is reactivated with prior visibility, and pages moved out during deletion are returned if they were not moved elsewhere. The 30-day window is also stated. It does not cover failure behavior after the window or idempotency, but the core restoration semantics are transparent.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The temporal constraint and restoration effects are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is placed at the end for quick reference.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential what, when, side effects, and prerequisite. It could mention the non-idempotent behavior from the annotations, but otherwise it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the single required parameter by telling the agent to obtain folder_id from list_deleted, which is the key operational detail missing from the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — bringing back a deleted folder — and makes clear it is the inverse of delete_folder and distinct from list_deleted. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It gives clear conditions for use: the folder must be restored within 30 days, and the folder_id comes from list_deleted. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or name an alternative restore mechanism, but the context is strong enough for correct invocation.

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