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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the restore depends on Google's retention of the cancelled event, and Outlook should surface an error rather than be handled with a fallback. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, followed by the necessary provider and error-handling constraints, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Together with the fully detailed input schema, the description covers the action, provider availability, a time-based precondition, and failure behavior for an unsupported provider. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap for a simple restore operation, though a bit more detail about the response could push it higher.

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 100%, and the schema already provides detailed semantics for event_id, calendar_id, and account_id, including exact ID requirements and never-pass guidance for titles/names. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('event previously cancelled by the connected organizer'), which clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_cancel_event and calendar_delete_event. The provider scoping ('Google Calendar') further sharpens the intended operation.

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?

The description explicitly states when this tool can be used: only for Google Calendar and only while Google retains the cancelled event. It also gives direct guidance for Outlook by instructing the agent to report the provider error without substituting another action, which prevents misuse.

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