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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing side effects an agent could not predict: pipeline restores drag former records back to their original stages, default-pipeline status may be reinstated conditionally, and follow-up tasks are spawned for restored companies/people with a next action. It also states the idempotencyKey retry contract, which is exactly the kind of behavior the idempotentHint alone cannot convey.

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 core action and its argument source are front-loaded, and the long side-effect sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information. The trailing untrusted-content safety line is boilerplate but justified for CRM field values.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers permissions, failure modes, side effects and idempotency. The only real omission is what the call returns on success, though the retry sentence hints at it.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by telling the agent where source and id come from (list_deleted_records) and how idempotencyKey behaves on retry. workspaceId is left to the schema's own description, so coverage is good but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restores one record from the trash') and immediately names the sibling that supplies its arguments (list_deleted_records), which separates it from delete_record and reopen_record without opening any 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?

Gives clear preconditions (workspace admin on a plan with the audit log) and explicit failure conditions (dependency gone, retention period passed), plus the argument-source routing to list_deleted_records. It does not contrast with the near-neighbour reopen_record, so it falls short of fully explicit alternatives.

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