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

The description adds the useful context that the category must have been previously deleted, and it does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with a mutating restore operation). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency behavior, or what happens if the category is not in a deleted state, so it goes only slightly beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: it states the verb, resource, and the key precondition ('previously deleted').

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, resource, and state required. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens if the category is already restored or whether restoration is permanent, but the low complexity and existing schema make the description sufficient.

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% for the single categoryId parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, such as format or source, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Restore a previously deleted CMS post category.' It clearly identifies the action (restore) and the resource (CMS post category), and the phrase 'previously deleted' distinguishes it from create/update/delete category tools and from other restore_* siblings.

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?

The description implies usage for restoring deleted categories by saying 'previously deleted,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_category or create_category, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear enough for a simple restore operation but lacks explicit guidance.

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