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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effect (private link becomes active again), the state precondition (currently in Trash), the hard failure case (permanently purged pages cannot be restored), and the ownership restriction. These are exactly the constraints an agent could otherwise trip over.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its inverse, followed by identification and constraints. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics and preconditions. It is slightly thin on what the call returns or how failure is signalled (e.g., an error for purged pages), which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema description already says 'viewer URL or slug of a page currently in your Trash'. The description restates the same accepted formats without adding syntax, examples, or edge-case guidance, so 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 and resource ('Bring a page back from Trash') and anchors it against a sibling by calling it 'the inverse of delete_page'. An agent can distinguish it from delete_page, get_page, and update_page 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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: the page must still be in Trash, must not be purged, and must belong to the caller. It names the inverse operation but does not explicitly route to an alternative tool for other cases, so it falls just short of a 5.

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