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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), requires specific roles, and fails if the form is not in the trash. It does not mention any side effects like permanently deleting or overwriting data, but the annotation destructiveHint=false covers that concern.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds constraints in a logical order, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: what the restore does, who may perform it, and when it will error. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly in the intended workflow.

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?

The schema already fully documents formId with a clear description, and the tool description does not add significant parameter-level detail. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds context about team scope but not about the parameter itself.

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 states the action ('Restore a form from the trash'), the resource (form), and the scope ('current team'). It also ties directly to its inverse operation ('undo delete_form'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like update_form or create_form.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to undo a deletion of a form in the current team. It specifies permission requirements and an error condition, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases like creating a new form or editing an existing one, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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