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

The description adds the 'soft-deleted' qualifier, which clarifies the target state beyond the annotation title. Since annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description's extra context is modest but valuable.

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 a single, focused sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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 tool with robust annotations, the one-sentence description provides sufficient context to select and invoke it, though it omits nuances like how soft-deletion is represented or potential error conditions. The presence of sibling relm_delete gives enough context for a user to infer when restore is appropriate.

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 only 50%; the description does not elaborate on the `id` parameter or clarify how `object` maps to available record types beyond the enum. The meaning of `id` is left implicit, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the action (restore) and the target (soft-deleted record), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from relm_delete, relm_get, and relm_update siblings by focusing on the soft-deleted state.

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 implies usage when a previously soft-deleted record should be made active again, but it does not explicitly contrast with relm_delete or note when not to use it. There is no exclusion guidance for records that were permanently deleted.

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