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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining where the restored project is placed depending on its prior archived state, though it does not mention permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed directly by the important archived-state distinction.

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 single-parameter restore operation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough. It explains the key behavioral nuance and does not need to explain return values because no output schema exists.

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% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema as a project UUID from `list_projects`. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: restore a project from the trash. It clearly distinguishes the resource from sibling tools like restore_checkpoint, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or 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?

It clearly implies the tool is used when a project is in the trash and adds a useful condition: projects archived before being trashed return to the archive. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as restore_checkpoint.

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