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

Annotations give destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them by clarifying that the cancel path ('rollback') leaves current sheet contents untouched, which an agent could not infer from the structured fields. It still doesn't say what 'resume' mutates or when the cancel is/ isn't safe, so it's not 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?

A single tight sentence with the primary case front-loaded, no filler. Slightly compact to the point of ambiguity ('cancel it' requires the reader to connect it to the rollback enum).

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 values need no explanation, but for a destructive recovery mutation with three required params and only 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the caller to work out the action enum mapping, the sheetId role, and idempotency behavior on their own. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%: idempotencyKey is richly documented in the schema, while sheetId has no description anywhere. The description partially compensates for the action enum by naming 'resume' and 'cancel', which map onto resume/rollback, but it does not explicitly tie the words to the enum values or explain sheetId. Baseline for the coverage gap with only partial compensation is a 3.

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+resource pair ('resume a failed snapshot restore' / cancel it), so an agent can tell this is a recovery control for an in-flight restore. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like sheets_restore_version or sheets_get_version_restore, which is the main gap.

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 implied rather than stated: this applies only when a restore has already failed ('a failed snapshot restore'). There is no explicit routing to or away from sheets_restore_version or sheets_get_version_restore, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a prior failed restore id).

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