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

The 30-day recovery window is a real behavioral constraint the annotations do not carry (they only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It implies restoration is bounded but doesn't state what happens to an expired id, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and usage/trigger is front-loaded ahead of the parameter detail. Every clause 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 single-parameter restore tool with no output schema, this covers when to use it, the source of the id, and the recovery window. Only the failure mode (id older than 30 days) is left implicit, a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it names the parameter's meaning and, more usefully, its source ('pass the id returned by trash_task'). It stops short of confirming uuid format, which the schema already enforces.

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 ('recover a task they deleted') and scopes it to a 30-day window. It implicitly distinguishes itself as the inverse of trash_task, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('user wants to recover a task they deleted') and supplies concrete user phrasings ('undo that delete'). It also tells the agent the id comes from trash_task, closing the main invocation gap.

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