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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what is restored (body, tags, attachments, history), the purge-date time limit, and the account/workspace scope.

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?

One dense front-loaded sentence states scope, effect, and precondition, followed by the required-parameter line. Slightly redundant with the schema's own required marker, but no wasted sentences.

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-param, annotation-covered mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is restored, the purge-date constraint, and the target account scope. The only missing piece is explicit routing versus notes-revert.

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 single param is documented there, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by specifying that id is the same note id produced by notes-delete, which is meaningful semantic guidance for retrieving the right value.

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) and resource (note) with its origin (moved to Trash by notes-delete) and account scope. An agent can distinguish this from notes-delete and, on inspection of the name, from notes-revert without opening any 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 a clear applicability condition — only works before the note's purge date — and identifies the parameter needed (the id of the deleted note). However, it does not contrast with the sibling notes-revert, leaving the agent to infer which of the two recovery tools to pick.

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