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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the 30-day recoverability limit and the fact that the restored task lands in a PAUSED state rather than running. It stops short of describing error behavior for expired or non-existent tasks.

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 short sentences, with the recoverability constraint and the PAUSED-state gotcha front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the time limit, and the resulting state. Only edge-case outcomes (expired task, already-active task) 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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the UUID comes from create_task or list_tasks. The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance for the id, which is fine but earns only the baseline.

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?

"Bring a task back from the recycle bin" is a specific verb plus resource plus source location, and it implicitly inverts delete_task while pointing forward to resume_task. An agent can distinguish this from get_task or list_tasks 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?

The 30-day eligibility window tells the agent when this tool is valid, and the explicit "resume it explicitly" instruction routes it to resume_task as the follow-up step. There is no explicit statement of when this tool should not be used (e.g., on tasks that were never deleted) or what happens after 30 days.

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