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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the task comes back PAUSED, and the 30-day time constraint. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a simple restore operation, it provides essential transparency beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical behavior (paused state) is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a simple one-parameter tool: it states the action, the time limit, and the resulting state. It lacks details on failure cases or return values, but given no output schema and the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (bring back), the resource (task), and the scope (from recycle bin within 30 days). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_task (opposite) and resume_task (since it mentions the task returns paused). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 it (to recover a deleted task within 30 days) and even notes the subsequent need to resume. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like resume_task or delete_task. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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