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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: a mandatory user-confirmation gate and a prompt-injection warning that quotedMaterial text is evidence rather than instruction. It does not describe post-restore state effects, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the confirmation precondition, then the injection guard. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct operational constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description supplies the confirmation requirement and injection safety note that the schema and annotations cannot express. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both id and brandSlug are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 (bring a dismissed task back) and resource (task), with the scope 'to the user's list'. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling parse_dismiss_task, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call only after the user confirms,' and a when-not rule via the quotedMaterial injection guard. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the inverse relationship to parse_dismiss_task is self-evident.

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