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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful auth context with 'Needs the account scope,' but it does not explain what happens if the question was not deleted, whether position/history is preserved, or what errors may occur.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It efficiently communicates the core operation and the required auth scope.

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 simple one-parameter restore tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and auth requirement. However, because schema coverage is 0% and job_id is undocumented, the parameter meaning is a meaningful completeness 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single job_id parameter, but it never mentions job_id or explains that it identifies the deleted question. The parameter name offers some inference, but the description adds no semantic detail.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: putting a deleted question back into the Ask history. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as delete_ask, ask_question, and list_ask_history without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 usage context is implied by 'deleted question' and the auth prerequisite is stated, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or mention when not to use it. A caller can infer the intended case, but no routing guidance is provided.

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