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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the dry-run preview behavior, the cascading scope of deletions, the `impact` and `blocked_reason` response fields, and the required user-confirmation sequence. This is substantial behavioral context for a mutation/restore tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and parameter meaning, then adds operational safeguards. Every sentence carries useful information about previewing, cascading effects, confirmation, or safety constraints.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still helpfully references key response fields (`impact`, `blocked_reason`) and fully explains the required call sequence. For a restore operation with cascading effects, the description provides everything needed to invoke it safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: `id` is a `rcv_…` handle from `list_recent_deletions`, and `confirm` controls whether the operation previews or executes. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their schema types.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: "Restore data deleted earlier." It distinguishes this tool from the related listing tool by specifying that `id` comes from `list_recent_deletions`.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step workflow: first call without `confirm` to preview impact, then call with `confirm=true` after user approval. It also names clear exclusions: never infer the target and never undo entries with a non-empty `blocked_reason`.

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