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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only assert idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description discloses what state is restored (file, versions, links, analytics, share links with their settings), what is explicitly NOT restored (tags), that archived/off-switched state is preserved, the permission bar ('a viewer cannot restore'), four named refusal codes with their conditions, and an untrusted-content caveat on returned text.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and restoration semantics, and essentially every clause carries information (state restored, exclusions, error codes, permissions). It is a single dense paragraph with some long compound sentences, which costs a little readability but does not waste words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers outcome, side effects, exclusions, permission requirements, idempotency-adjacent behavior, and the full refusal taxonomy. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 docId parameter is fully described there, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning by explaining that the id refers to a deleted document, that such documents are absent from lnkdrp_list_docs, and precisely where the id can be recovered.

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 ('Brings back a document deleted with lnkdrp_delete_doc'), its scope (within 30 days), and the exact inverse relationship to a named sibling. An agent can distinguish it from lnkdrp_restore_project, lnkdrp_restore_share_link, and lnkdrp_delete_doc 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?

Explicitly frames when to use it (a doc deleted in-app or via delete_doc, still inside 30 days), when it will fail (past 30 days, not deleted, parent project/workspace deleted, Free shared-doc cap), and where to obtain the docId ('its id is in the delete's result and in the doc.deleted row of the activity feed'). The only miss is not naming lnkdrp_list_deleted as an alternate id source, which does not undermine the guidance given.

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