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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description does not need to restate them. It adds the useful explicit-request policy, but it says nothing about preconditions (what happens if the memory was never deleted), what is actually restored (versions, links, metadata), or the consequences of the non-idempotent flag.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage restriction. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 and annotations are present, so return values and safety are covered elsewhere, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is failure behavior and precondition detail for a non-idempotent restore, which is a moderate rather than critical omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents memory_id, reason, and metadata_json. The description adds no further parameter semantics; at best it hints that a previously deleted memory_id is expected. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a previously deleted memory.' This implicitly distinguishes it from the inverse operation (forget/remove), but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Intended only for when the user explicitly asks to restore or undo a deletion' is an explicit gate: it states the exact condition that should select this tool and implicitly excludes speculative or proactive use. That is stronger guidance than most siblings offer.

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