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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the role requirement (creator or admin) and the failure mode where a task is refused because its line code is reused. It does not describe return values, though an output schema exists to carry that.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and follows with the authorization rule and the failure case. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: the write semantics, the role requirement, and the conflict-refusal behavior.

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 both userId and taskIds are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the batch nature ('one or more trashed tasks') without adding format or constraint detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('brings one or more trashed tasks back') and frames the tool as 'the undo for deleting them', which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_task. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 usage context ('the undo for deleting them') and an authorization precondition ('as the task's creator or an admin'), plus a refusal condition for line-code conflicts. It stops short of explicitly naming delete_task as the counterpart, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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