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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive mutation, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a 200-object cap, ownership restriction ('Only the user's own deleted objects'), and exclusions for merged and purged records. It stops short of describing partial-success or invalid-ID behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by limits and exclusions in descending order of importance. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the mutation safety profile, the description supplies what remains: scope, ownership, size limit, and the merged/purged exclusions. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter is object_ids with its own 'at most 200' description. The description repeats the 200 cap but adds no syntax, formatting, or handling detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Bring back objects the user deleted') and immediately scopes it as the inverse of two named delete siblings. An agent can distinguish it from delete_graph_object and delete_selected_graph_objects without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives ('the undo for delete_graph_object and delete_selected_graph_objects') and when not to use it ('A record that was merged into another is not restored here; unmerge_graph_objects undoes a merge'). It also rules out purged objects, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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