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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that the restore is non-destructive ('preserving their original roster entries'), but it does not explain what happens on an invalid/expired undoId or that reusing an undoId after success will fail, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough to leave the idempotency edge case unaddressed.

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-value explanation is not required, and there is only one parameter with full schema coverage. The description covers the core action and the non-destructive nature; only edge-case behavior (invalid or reused undoId) is missing.

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% (the undoId pattern and its 'from remove_students' origin are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the parameter's role but adds no format, validity, or lifetime details beyond the schema.

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 ('Restores') and resource ('removed roster students') with the qualifying mechanism ('using a valid undoId'). An agent can distinguish it from remove_students as the inverse operation, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the requirement of a 'valid undoId' (and the schema note 'undoId from remove_students') signals this must follow a remove_students call, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of undo-window expiry.

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