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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: the authorization rule, the restore scope/state effect, and a temporal expiry after which the resource is 'not found'. It adds real behavioral context beyond a bare 'restore'. Rate-limit or idempotency behavior is unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the constraint and the return shape. No filler or hedging.

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 restore operation with an output schema present, this covers the effect, authorization, and expiry window, and even notes the reply type. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 75%, and the schema already documents token, agentName and agentModel; designId is self-evident as the required target. The description adds no format, syntax, or usage detail for any parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: bringing a deleted design back out of the trash, and enumerates exactly what is restored (revision, history, access list, overlay, discussion). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling ui_builder_restore_revision, which is a different operation.

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 clear conditions: allowed to whoever could have deleted it, valid until restorableUntilEpochMillis, and after that it is not found. This is strong when/when-not guidance, though it never names the sibling restore_revision to explicitly route the agent away from it.

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