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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: restoration is exact and identity-preserving, deletion is retained for a plan-specific Trash window, and specific error outcomes are enumerated. It does not describe permissions or the shape of the returned list, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences, densely packed with no filler, and the primary restore action is front-loaded before the listing mode and error conditions. The final sentence is somewhat compressed and run-on, which slightly hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what the no-argument mode returns (the company's deleted scripts) and what error answers mean (already_exists, upgrade door). For a two-param, zero-required tool this is close to complete, though permissions and list output shape remain unspecified.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the omit-tool_name listing behavior and adds the rationale that script_id disambiguates repeat deletions of the same name, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond structured data – 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?

Names a specific verb (restore) and resource (deleted Script Vault script), states exactly what is recovered (code, parameters, description, same tool_name), and adds a distinct second mode (list deleted scripts when tool_name is omitted). This clearly separates it from the sibling set (script_delete, script_save, script_get).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to omit tool_name (to list retained deleted scripts) versus supplying it to restore, and flags the two failure branches (already_exists, past the plan's Trash window). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for those situations, which keeps it just under a 5.

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