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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the interesting burden and does add unique context: the 30-day retention limit, the permanence of purge, and the post-restore behavior (link works again with prior visibility). It does not address what happens on a duplicate restore, though idempotentHint=false makes that a relevant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its deadline, with the trailing clause earning its place by explaining why purge is irreversible. No filler.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the retention window, irreversibility, and the resulting state of the restored link. Only the duplicate-restore behavior (relevant given idempotentHint=false) and confirmation that proposal_id is the deleted page's ID are left unstated.

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% and the single parameter (proposal_id) is never mentioned in the description. The description talks only about 'a page' and never says the caller must supply the deleted proposal's identifier, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap beyond the fairly self-explanatory parameter name.

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 ('Bring back') and resource ('a page you deleted'), plus the governing condition (within 30 days). An agent can immediately distinguish this from delete_proposal and the other proposal-management siblings 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 states both the use window ('only within 30 days of deletion') and the hard exclusion ('a page already erased cannot be restored'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming any alternative path, but there is no real substitute for a restore.

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