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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: restoration returns the item to its original location, a failed precondition (past Trash window) is surfaced in the response, and eligibility is gated on restoresWithThisTool. It doesn't cover permission requirements or whether an overwrite can occur at the original path, keeping it below a 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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite, then the failure condition, following in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct operational 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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the required input's origin, the eligibility check, and the failure signal in the response. It leaves dry_run's preview semantics and any permission/linked-person implications entirely to the schema, a minor but real gap.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including trashId as 'The item's id from list_trash'. The description reinforces the provenance and preconditions of trashId but adds nothing about person, project, or dry_run beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Put a file the member deleted back where it was'), which unambiguously identifies a restore-from-trash operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings such as connections_storage_restore_google_drive_files, but the trashId/'restoresWithThisTool' framing ties it clearly to the Trash workflow.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance by naming list_trash as the source of the required trashId and adding the gating condition that the item's restoresWithThisTool must be true. It also describes an exclusion (items past the Trash window cannot be restored), though it doesn't explicitly name alternative restore tools for non-trash cases.

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