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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the restored flow returns in a disabled state and needs a separate toggle call, plus the 30-day eligibility limit. Auth/permission requirements are not covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and eligibility rule, with the follow-up step second. No wasted words.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: eligibility window, resulting state, and the next required call. Minor gaps only (error behavior when the flow is older than 30 days).

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('UUID of the deleted flow'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 (bring back/restore) and resource (a flow deleted in the last 30 days), including the eligibility window. This cleanly separates it from neuron_delete_flow, neuron_list_deleted_flows, and neuron_restore_flow_revision.

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 30-day window states the condition under which the tool applies, and it names the required follow-up tool (neuron_toggle_flow) to activate the restored flow. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or 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.