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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: restored items land in their original column and position, and a restored board returns with its contents. However, it never addresses the destructiveHint=true annotation — an agent gets no warning about what restoring may overwrite at that position — nor idempotence, though the annotations at least carry those flags.

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?

Front-loads the core action and stays to a few sentences, but the second sentence restates the first ('puts it back on the board, and in the column, it was trashed from') with awkward comma structure, and the trailing 'column_id is set when...' clause reads like an output note wedged into an action description.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers placement semantics, board-vs-card scope, contents restoration, and the permission boundary. The main omission is any hint of the destructive behavior the annotations flag, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including that it comes from list_trash. The description repeats the trash provenance but adds no new syntax or constraint beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Take a card or board out of the trash and put it back where it was') and clarifies scope that the name hides — it restores either cards or boards. It implicitly separates itself from list_trash, which only inspects the trash, though it never names trash_cards or any verb alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only items in your own trash, as list_trash shows them'), which tells the agent where the ID must come from and that list_trash is the discovery path. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a sibling as the alternative for non-trash items.

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