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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the record must be soft-deleted and in the recycle bin, restoration is admin-only, and the operation fails if the record has been purged after 30 days. This gives an agent concrete expectations about preconditions and failure modes that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, then the authorization constraint, then the failure condition. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of 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 single-parameter restore operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, authorization, and a key failure condition. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It does not explicitly define contact_id, but it implies the parameter identifies a soft-deleted contact in the recycle bin and that it must not be purged. The schema supplies the required, type, and uuid format, so together the agent has enough understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a soft-deleted contact from the recycle bin.' It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling restore tools like crm_restore_deal and crm_restore_lead by naming the target resource, and it adds the recycle-bin scope that makes the action 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?

The description gives clear context: it is for restoring soft-deleted contacts, requires admin privileges, and cannot succeed for purged records. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the resource-specific wording combined with sibling names provides enough directional guidance. 'Admin-only' is a strong prerequisite signal.

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