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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'without restarting generation' usefully discloses that existing generation state is preserved and no re-render is triggered — real value beyond annotations. However, the non-idempotent hint is never explained (what a second call does) and no permission or failure behavior is mentioned.

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 short sentence with the key behavioral qualifier ('without restarting generation') front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter mutation with annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate. It falls short on edge cases an agent would want: behavior on a production that isn't removed, why the operation is non-idempotent, and whether credits or assets are affected.

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 productionId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_productions or create_production). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 (brings back) and resource (a removed production), which cleanly inverts the sibling remove_production. It doesn't name any sibling directly, but the 'removed' qualifier makes the inverse relationship unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool applies to productions that were previously removed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over re-running create_production or retry_production, nor what happens if the production was never removed.

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