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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful workflow fact that the ID originates from list_deleted_projects, but says nothing about the effect of restoration (e.g. what state the project and its QR codes return to, or whether it can fail if the project has been purged).

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, trigger condition first, prerequisite second. No filler and nothing buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. For an idempotent, non-destructive single-parameter mutation, the description is close to sufficient, missing only the downstream effect of restoring.

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 parameter is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying where to obtain the idproject value (list_deleted_projects), which is genuine semantic guidance the type description alone does not provide.

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 ('deleted project restored') that is unambiguously distinct from the sibling restore_deleted_qrcode and from read-side tools like list_deleted_projects. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource noun alone disambiguates.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('when the user wants a deleted project restored') and a stated prerequisite: the ID must come from list_deleted_projects. It lacks any when-not guidance, e.g. what to do if the project was never deleted or if the user wants a QR code restored instead.

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