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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: what is restored (documents, public page, links), what is not (tags), the visibility edge case for orphaned private projects, the 30-day expiry, plan_limit on Free workspaces, the viewer permission requirement, and an untrusted-content warning. This is unusually rich disclosure.

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?

Long but front-loaded: purpose first, then restore semantics, identifier sourcing, refusals, and permission. Nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information, though a couple of phrasings (e.g. "made its home again where it was their home") are denser than needed.

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 the outcome shape (notes are the app's sentences), the refusal taxonomy, permission parity with delete, and the trust caveat on returned text. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: projectId comes from the delete result or activity feed, and a slug resolves to the most recently deleted project that held it. That disambiguation rule is not derivable from the schema.

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 (restore a deleted project) and anchors it to the sibling that caused the deletion (lnkdrp_delete_project), plus the app-based alternative. An agent can distinguish it from restore_doc, restore_share_link, and delete_project immediately.

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 states the 30-day window, how to obtain the identifier (the delete's result or the project.deleted row of the activity feed), that list_projects will not show it, and how slug matching resolves. Refusals are enumerated with concrete details.code values (purged, not_deleted, conflict), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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