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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is admin-only and will fail if the record has been purged after 30 days. This gives an agent realistic expectations about success/failure conditions without contradicting any annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the admin requirement, and the purge-failure condition. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 purpose, access control, and a key failure edge case. There is no output schema, but the absence of return-value details is acceptable; the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

There is only one parameter, task_id, and the schema already provides its name and uuid format. The description's reference to a 'task' implicitly identifies what task_id refers to, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or any additional constraints beyond 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?

The description names a specific action ('Restore'), a specific resource ('soft-deleted task'), and a location ('from the recycle bin'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like tasks_delete and tasks_update by targeting soft-deleted tasks only.

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 indicates when to use the tool: restore a soft-deleted task from the recycle bin. It also provides an important exclusion constraint ('Fails if the record has been purged (>30 days)') and an access prerequisite ('Admin-only'), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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