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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing auth requirements (account-bound computer:write OAuth) and a local owner approval prompt, plus a conflict rule (will not overwrite an existing file). The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with a restore mutation, though the description doesn't say what happens on recycleId mismatch or where the item lands.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by disambiguation and then preconditions. No filler or repeated 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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, disambiguation, and authorization. The only material omission is the destination of the restored item and failure behavior, which an agent may need.

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 parameter already documents its provenance from exza_home_trash_list and that it must never be guessed; the description only restates the keying field. That makes the schema the primary source, but the 'never guessed' safety framing is echoed usefully.

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), the exact resource (one item from EXZA recycle bin), the keying parameter (by recycleId), and an explicit sibling contrast with exza_copy_home_file. An agent can separate it from move/copy/trash siblings without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (exza_copy_home_file) and the condition that selects this tool instead (the object was previously trashed). No explicit when-not guidance or precondition checks (e.g., confirming the item is still in the bin) are given, keeping it just below a 5.

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