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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail not in the annotations: restoration targets the current user's account, not the original owner. It omits what happens to child QR codes associated with the project, which is material for a restore 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than tightness for a mutation tool.

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 not be explained, and the sole parameter is documented. However, for a state-changing restore the description should at least note the deleted-state prerequisite and the account-scoping side effect on associated QR codes.

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 idproject parameter is fully documented in the schema as the ID of the deleted project. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (restore) and resource (deleted project), so it is instantly distinguishable from siblings like restore_deleted_qrcode and list_deleted_projects. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stating the project must already be in a deleted state, and no pointer to list_deleted_projects as the way to obtain a valid idproject. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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