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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: no privileged role is needed ('Any member of the team can restore') and the precise error precondition. It does not discuss idempotency or what state the form returns to (e.g. prior publish state), leaving a small gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the license-to-operate and error condition. Nothing is redundant with the title and 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 single-parameter restore mutation this covers action, permission, scope, and precondition, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Minor omissions like whether restoration restores prior publish/archive state keep it just under complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining formId as the form UUID to restore. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a form from the trash') plus the scope ('in the current team') and explicitly links it to the inverse operation on the sibling 'delete_form'. An agent can distinguish this from delete_form or update_form without opening the schema.

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?

Clear triggering context is given: use this to undo a delete, scoped to the current team. The failure condition ('errors if the form is not in the trash') further constrains appropriate use. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that, which keeps it from a 5.

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