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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true (restoring overwrites current state), so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds some context via "code and data as they were," implying a revert, but does not explicitly warn that current content is replaced or describe reversibility.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and zero filler. The layered colon construction is slightly harder to parse than a two-sentence split would be, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description adequately conveys what can be restored and how version presence changes behavior. It stops short of stating that restoration replaces current state, which is the main remaining 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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting version restores from Recently Deleted while supplying a version restores from history. That ties the optional version parameter to a concrete behavioral branch beyond the schema's bare "A version from history."

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 states a specific verb ("Brings back") and enumerates the exact resources: a note or file from Recently Deleted, or an earlier version of a note's text, an app, or a file. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like delete, create, or history.

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 parenthetical "(no version)" versus the version path implies the two usage modes, so an agent can infer which to pick. However, no sibling tools are named and no explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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