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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals permission requirements (owner/admin only), scope (current team), and failure behavior (errors if form is not in trash). This goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive hints and gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Restore'), scope ('from the trash in the current team'), relationship ('undo delete_form'), access restriction, and error behavior. 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 one-parameter restoration action with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers what, where, who can perform it, and when it errors. There is no meaningful missing context for an agent to invoke it.

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 already describes formId as the form UUID. The description adds contextual constraints (must be in trash, current team) but does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description begins with a specific verb and object: 'Restore a form from the trash in the current team'. It also explicitly frames the operation as

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?

It explicitly names its counterpart 'delete_form', states the required context ('from the trash in the current team'), gives the permission prerequisites (owner/admin), and calls out an error condition when the form is not in the trash. This leaves little ambiguity about when the tool applies.

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