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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the mutation effects (original data, creator, version bump), authorization requirements (owner or agent), specific error conditions (restore_expired, restore_conflict), and return format ({ row }). This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then behavior, then error handling. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, failure modes, and return value. It references the relevant sibling tool for discovery, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'key' parameter by directing users to list_deleted_rows to find valid keys. App_id and collection remain basic, but the added key guidance raises the value above the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a soft-deleted row, undoing delete_row.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_row and list_deleted_rows, and explains that it reverses a prior soft delete.

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?

It provides explicit guidance by linking to list_deleted_rows for finding restorable keys, and implies the proper use case (restoring a soft-deleted row). The failure conditions for purge and conflict also implicitly tell the user when not to use it. This meets the standard for explicit alternatives and usage context.

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