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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and confirms the write nature ('Limitations: write operation') without contradicting anything, but says nothing about what happens on a non-deleted event, auth requirements, or repeat-call behavior for a non-idempotent operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing 'Limitations: write operation' fragment is slightly telegrammatic but not wasteful.

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 non-idempotent write over 6 parameters with no output schema, the description covers the core act and the endpoint but leaves the ambiguous 'when supported by the API' caveat and the multi-credential options unexplained. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents base_url, api_token, account_id, access_token and app_password. The description adds only the fact that event_id is a path segment in /events/restore/:event_id; it adds nothing about account_id scoping or which credential to supply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Restores a deleted/archived time entry' — which cleanly separates it from delete_event, get_event and update_event. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other restore_* siblings (restore_task, restore_project, restore_customer, restore_user); the resource noun carries that distinction implicitly.

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?

'when supported by the API' is a hedge rather than guidance — it tells the agent an operation may fail without saying how to know or what to do. There is no stated precondition (event must already be deleted/archived), no alternative named, and no when-not to use it.

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