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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the effect ('bring a tombstoned claim back into active views') and the concept of 'tombstoned', which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the parameter guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. It is concise and structured effectively.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an optional workspace, the description covers the purpose and the key parameter source. It does not mention the workspace, but that is in the schema. It lacks explicit mention of idempotency or non-destructive nature, but those are in annotations. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

The schema has 50% coverage (only workspace is described). The description compensates for the undocumented node_id by specifying it comes from 'superseded', adding critical semantic meaning. It does not add anything about workspace, but the schema already covers that, so the description adds value where needed.

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 clearly states the action ('Undo a supersession') and the resource ('a tombstoned claim'), with a specific verb and object. It also references the source of the node id ('from `superseded`'), which helps distinguish it from the sibling 'superseded' tool that lists superseded claims.

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 when to use it (when you have a node id from the superseded list) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It says 'Pass the node id (from `superseded`)', which gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling tools like 'resolve' or 'recall'.

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