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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is provided externally. The description adds useful context by specifying that restoration is from trash and that only eligible resources qualify, but it does not explain what 'eligible' means, what permissions are required, or what happens on conflict. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the key scoping constraint ('from trash') is front-loaded before the enumerated resource types.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits eligibility rules, permission requirements, conflict behavior, and any indication of what is returned, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly beyond the basic annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the resource types in prose ('dataset, collection, map, or project'), which loosely maps to the resourceType enum, but it does not name parameters or explain the UUID format or required pairing. It adds some meaning for resourceType but leaves resourceId entirely undocumented beyond its schema format.

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 states a specific action ('Restore') and resource scope ('dataset, collection, map, or project'), and adds the important qualifier 'from trash.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like resource_delete or resource_view, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'from trash' gives a minimal contextual cue about when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, eligibility criteria, or when to use this versus alternatives such as resource_view or search. An agent must infer all usage conditions.

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