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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive write), the description adds two real facts: the source is the Recently deleted bin, and the restore is recursive ('everything that was in it'). It says nothing about retention windows, permission requirements, or what happens if the folder is not in the bin.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope detail (contents restored too) follows immediately. It is efficient, though the informal phrasing is the only structure present.

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 tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the non-obvious cascade effect. Only edge-case behavior (folder not in the bin, retention expiry) is 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 coverage is 100% and the single folder_id parameter is already documented with its source (list_folders or get_folder). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Brings a folder back') plus the source location ('Recently deleted'), which distinguishes it from delete_folder, create_folder, and update_folder among the siblings. It lacks an explicit contrast to any sibling but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call it on a folder that sits in Recently deleted. There is no statement of when not to use it (e.g., re-creating a purged folder instead) and no mention of any alternative tool for recovery.

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