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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, so safety is partially covered. The description adds nothing about permissions, whether a purged asset can be recovered, or what the operation returns, leaving the behavioral profile thin beyond the 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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it uses its brevity by omitting rather than by distilling detail.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nevertheless omits the precondition that the asset must still exist in the recycle bin and ignores that asset_id is marked optional in the schema despite being needed.

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% and the single asset_id parameter is documented there, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the id beyond what the schema states.

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 (recovers) and resource (deleted asset) with the sourcing location (recycle bin), which cleanly separates it from delete_asset and list_recycle_bin. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools.

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 recycle-bin framing implies the use case (undoing a deletion) without stating preconditions or naming alternatives such as list_recycle_bin. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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