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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the cascade semantics (sub-folders and notes return together as they were), which the annotations do not convey. This is useful, though it stops short of noting reversibility window or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and cascade effect, then discovery path, then the notes-restore exclusion, then the required parameter. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical about notes-restore is slightly verbose.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a single fully-described parameter, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything needed to call correctly: cascade semantics, how to discover valid ids, the sibling exclusion, and the required argument.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description's '(integer, the deleted folder's id)' and 'Required' largely restate the schema, adding little beyond it. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Restore a deleted folder from Trash') and the scope (personal account or authorized team workspace). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling notes-restore by explaining the cascade case, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to containers-list with scope 'trashed' to find restorable folders, and names the condition under which notes-restore will refuse and this tool is the only path. Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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