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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact that annotations cannot convey – the item returns to its original location rather than to an arbitrary one. It says nothing about what happens if the ID is not in the trash, or whether restoring can fail or displace existing content, which is notable given destructiveHint=true.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the outcome (returned to original position) is front-loaded alongside the action. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing 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 tool with no output schema and annotations that fully cover the safety profile, this is nearly complete. The only real gap is preconditions and failure behavior for a non-trashed ID, which is minor given the schema already points at list_trash.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema coverage the baseline is a 4. The description earns that baseline by clarifying that card_id may refer to a board as well as a card, a distinction the parameter name itself does not make.

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 verb ('take out of the trash') and resource ('a card or board') and states the resulting effect ('put it back where it was'). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling trash_cards and from the read-only list_trash 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?

The usage is implied by the word 'trash' – an agent can infer this is the undo for trashing – but the description never says when to use it, that the item must already be trashed, or that list_trash is the way to find valid IDs. The schema description ('ID of a trashed card or board from list_trash') carries that routing information instead.

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