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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-read-only mutation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the restore reinstates all questions, logic, and answers, and it consumes tariff-limit space, which can block the operation. It could go further on permissions or idempotency, but the added constraint is meaningful.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the restore action, followed by the tariff-limit failure condition and the archive_quiz alternative. Every sentence carries routing or constraint value with no waste.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, failure mode, and sibling routing. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema, including the 100-quiz cap and the workspace://list source for workspace_id. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: restoring a deleted quiz from trash, and specifies that questions, logic, and answers come back with it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from archive_quiz, so an agent can route between restoring from trash and removing from archive without opening either 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 a clear when-to-use condition (a deleted quiz sits in trash) and a when-not condition (if the tariff limit is exhausted, restore will fail). It names the alternative archive_quiz for the different task of unarchiving, which is exactly the sibling-ambiguation needed.

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