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

Annotations mark this as a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'vuelve a donde estaba' (item returns to its original location) and the non-obvious side-effect that restoring an entity lifts the name veto so the Atlas can suggest it again. It stops short of covering failure cases or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by scope and the notable side-effect. Every sentence earns its place, though the closing clause is a slightly dense aside rather than strictly essential.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the restorable types, the location semantics, the entity-veto side-effect, and points to get_trash for inputs. That is close to complete; only permissions and error/reversibility behaviour are unaddressed.

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 id and tipo are already documented in the schema, and workspace_id even explains the UUID-or-name and omission behaviour. The description only loosely echoes the tipo domain (saying 'recap' where the enum says 'meeting'), adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (recupera algo de la papelera / restores from trash) and enumerates exactly what can be restored (documento, canvas, recap, clip, entidad). It references get_trash as the read counterpart, so an agent can pair the two without opening schemas. It does not explicitly distinguish from the version-restore siblings (restore_document_version, restore_artifact_version), so it falls short of a clean 5.

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?

The parenthetical '(ver get_trash)' tells the agent where to obtain the id/tipo needed to invoke it, which is actionable context. However, it names no alternative or exclusion condition (e.g. when to prefer a version restore instead), which caps it below a 5.

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