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

Annotations already declare the tool non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it answers with the submission id and new spam flag, and it explicitly warns that this only clears the spam flag, not deletion. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The core action and response are front-loaded, and the caveat about deletions is separate and concise. 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the action, scope, response content, and an important boundary (no deletion undo). The annotations handle idempotency and destructive risk, and the schema covers parameter formats. A small gap is the lack of explicit error or permission context, but this is not essential for calling the tool.

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 both form_id and submission_id are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Moves a submission back to the inbox' and 'clears the spam flag.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mark_submission_spam and makes the reverse action obvious. The response behavior is also stated up front.

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 gives clear context: use this when a submission should be restored from spam, not when dealing with deletion ('There is no undo for deletions; this only clears the spam flag'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling like mark_submission_spam, but the guidance is strong enough to prevent confusion.

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