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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (write operation) and not destructive (restore is constructive). The description adds the 30-day recovery window and directs the agent to use the id from trash_task, but it does not disclose behavior around errors, idempotency, or what happens if the task is already restored. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The use case is front-loaded, followed by the parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations present, the description covers the trigger condition and the parameter source. It omits details like success/error responses, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: the id is 'the id returned by trash_task', which gives the agent clear provenance and intent beyond the schema's bare 'uuid' format. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool restores a deleted task, with a specific use case ('undo that delete', 'restore the task I just removed') and a 30-day window. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like trash_task by naming it as the source of the id, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('when the user wants to recover a task they deleted in the last 30 days') and gives a concrete example. However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool (e.g., if the task is not in the trash or if you need to recover a permanently deleted task), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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