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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation targets trashed items, but says nothing about what happens on an id that isn't in the trash, whether restore fails or is a no-op, or whether the restored bubble overwrites anything.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the source of the ids. No filler whatsoever.

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 mutation with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness and no output schema, the description is essentially sufficient. The only missing piece is edge-case behavior (invalid or non-trashed id), which is minor at this complexity.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states 'The bubble's id, from list_deleted_bubbles'. The description's parenthetical merely repeats that provenance, adding no new meaning about format or behavior beyond the pattern in the schema.

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 ('bring back' / restore) and resource ('a bubble') with the scope qualifier 'from the trash', which clearly separates it from delete_bubble and update_bubble. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'from the trash (ids from list_deleted_bubbles)' tells the agent the precondition (the bubble must be trashed) and the tool that supplies valid ids, which is concrete routing guidance. No explicit when-not or failure-case guidance (e.g., what if the id isn't deleted), keeping it below 5.

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