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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; beyond that the description adds real context — restoration is atomic for the folder's subtree ('sub-folders and notes return together, exactly as they were') and that the notes-restore path refuses such notes. Nothing contradicts 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, discovery path, sibling exclusion, and required parameter. Front-loaded with the core verb-resource pair and zero 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?

For a one-required-parameter restore tool with no output schema, everything needed to select and invoke correctly is present: what is restored, how to locate eligible targets, how it interacts with notes-restore, and exactly what id to pass.

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% and the schema already describes id as 'Deleted container ID (required)'. The description adds only the minor clarification that it is 'the deleted folder's id,' so the baseline 3 applies without meaningful additional semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Restore a deleted folder from the Trash' — and sharply defines the scope by saying the whole deleted subtree comes back together. It also names the sibling it is not (notes-restore), so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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 an explicit precondition and discovery path ('Find restorable folders with containers-list scope ‘trashed’') and an explicit exclusion: a note deleted together with a folder can only come back this way because notes-restore refuses it. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated directly.

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