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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context the annotations do not carry: previously revoked media links remain invalid after restore, which affects whether an agent should warn the user before calling.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat about media links as a second, subordinate clause. Nothing to trim.

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 no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the action and the key post-restore side effect. The remaining gap — how an agent learns the score is actually in the recycle bin, or what the result looks like — is minor for a tool this simple.

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%, and the description says nothing about score_id — but the single required parameter is self-evident as the identifier of the trashed score given the stated purpose. The description does not clarify whether restored scores retain their original id or whether non-trashed ids are rejected.

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 — restoring a score from the recycle bin — which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like trash_score or restore_score_version. It stops short of naming the sibling it inverts, so the pairing is implied rather than explicit.

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 'from the recycle bin' framing implies the condition for use (the score was previously trashed), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of trash_score as the counterpart operation, and no statement about what happens if the score is not in the bin.

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