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

Annotations already disclose the key behavioral traits: not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the undo relationship to delete_node, which is useful context, but does not explain recovery limits, failure cases, or what restoration actually affects.

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 description is a single tightly written sentence with zero filler, and the core action and its relationship to delete_node are front-loaded.

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 restore tool with full schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description is largely complete. It could say a bit more about recovery conditions, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to understand the operation.

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 parameters are already clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or semantic nuance beyond what nodeId and threadId already convey, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Bring back') and resource ('generation (node)') and explicitly ties the operation to the delete_node sibling as its inverse. This distinguishes it from delete_node clearly, though it does not differentiate from broader restore/recovery operations beyond that one counterpart.

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 by the reference to nodes 'removed with delete_node', suggesting this is the undo path for that action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites such as whether the node must still exist in a recoverable state, or any exclusions.

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