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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description needn't restate them. It adds the useful context that the target must be a trashed bubble, but says nothing about what happens on a name collision, whether the bubble returns to its original location, or what error occurs for a non-trashed id.

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 with no waste, front-loading the action and resource before the parenthetical id source. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what to call it with and where the id comes from. Missing only the post-restore outcome (destination, collision behavior), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to explain returns.

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, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including a regex pattern. The description repeats the id provenance already stated in the schema field description, adding no new format or constraint detail. 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 (restore) and resource (bubble) plus the scope 'back from the trash', which distinguishes it from sixteenbridges_delete_bubble and sixteenbridges_get_bubble. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Names the prerequisite source of the id (sixteenbridges_list_deleted_bubbles), which tells the agent when this tool applies: only for bubbles already in the trash. No explicit when-not or failure-case guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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