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

Adds rich behavior beyond the annotations: permission requirement, schema/write-rule validation, the fact that restoring twice yields two versions, and the specific failure ITEM_UNABLE_TO_RESTORE when restoring to the current version. This is consistent with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, sharpening rather than repeating them.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the core action first, then prerequisites, failure modes, and request cost. The opening sentence's long parenthetical is slightly heavy but every clause carries operational value.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers what is restored (data, description, tags, readonly, activated), permission/auth needs, error codes, and the precondition behavior implied by ifMatch. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: a deleted item must be supplied by original id and is re-created with it, which goes beyond the schema's 'its id or alias value'. It also ties eventId to events discoverable via list_events.

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 ('put back as it was at an event') and resource, and precisely enumerates the four event types it restores to ('item-created, item-updated, item-restored or item-deleted'). An agent can distinguish this from update_item or patch_item_data purely from the description.

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 explicit context: events must be found first via list_events with restorable: true, and the token needs restore permission. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling alternatives like patch_item_data or update_item for non-restore edits, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not statement.

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