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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description goes beyond them by explaining exactly where the restored resource lands. It omits failure behavior (e.g. what happens if the form is not in trash) and any permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter details following in the order an agent needs them. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no nested objects, the description supplies everything required to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of error/prerequisite behavior keeps it from being fully 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 0%, so the burden falls on the description, and it delivers: the omitted-vs-null-vs-string distinction for folderId is a tri-state semantic that the schema's type: [string, null] cannot express. formId is left unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from the tool name.

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 ('Restore a form') and adds scope ('from trash'), which lets an agent distinguish it from form_delete and form_update without opening a schema. No ambiguity about what the tool achieves.

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 destination-resolution sentence gives operational context (omit vs null vs string), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative such as the sibling form_delete that presumably puts a form in the trash. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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