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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: exactly what is restored (git data, LFS objects, issues, PRs, collaborators, webhooks), what is deliberately not re-run (cancelled CI, stopped webhook deliveries), the name-conflict refusal, required permissions ('admin' scope, owner or site admin), and the audit record repo.restore. All consistent with readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false.

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?

Dense but disciplined: purpose and source-of-id first, then restoration semantics, then constraints/auth, closing with the return shape. Every clause carries operational information with no filler.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description states the return payload ({restored: true, id, full_name}) and covers preconditions, permissions, refusal behavior and audit logging, leaving nothing an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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% with a single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by naming where the id originates (gluecron_list_deleted_repos) and the deadline that makes it valid, which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Restore a deleted repository') and resource ('by id'), and distinguishes itself from siblings gluecron_list_deleted_repos (source of the id), gluecron_delete_repo and gluecron_purge_repo by making clear this reverses a deletion rather than performing one.

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 the precondition that the id must come from gluecron_list_deleted_repos and that the restore must occur before the restorable_until deadline, plus the refusal condition when the name is taken. It does not explicitly contrast against a permanent alternative (purge), so it stops just short of 5.

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