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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the operation is not permanent deletion, requires admin privileges, and will fail if the record has been purged after 30 days. This goes beyond the annotations and gives an agent actionable expectations.

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 primary action is front-loaded, and the two additional sentences each carry essential constraints (admin-only, purged-record failure). Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter restore operation, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, who can use it, and a key failure condition. It does not describe the success response, but no output schema exists and the return value is unlikely to be critical for a restore action. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only defines project_id as a required UUID with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the ID must refer to a soft-deleted project currently in the recycle bin, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. Since there is only one self-explanatory parameter, the lack of detailed param documentation is not a major gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') with a clear resource ('soft-deleted project from the recycle bin'), which precisely distinguishes this tool from related siblings like projects_reactivate, projects_delete, and crm_restore_*. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to recover a soft-deleted project from the recycle bin. It also adds important usage constraints (Admin-only, fails if purged >30 days). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though those are fairly inferable.

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