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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the item returns to its original position with the same id, note, details, links and saves, and the restore touches only the working version while readers continue seeing the last approved version until the owner approves. That versioning consequence is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding. The restore semantics are front-loaded and the publication/versioning caveat follows, so an agent gets the essential facts in the first sentence.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers outcome, preserved data, and the approval/versioning effect, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of failure modes (item not found, id already live) and any permission requirements for who may restore.

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% for the single itemId parameter, and the schema itself already states the accepted id sources (removedId from remove_item or an id from removed_items). The description adds no id syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Put a removed pick back on its list') and describes the restored state precisely, including position and preserved fields. It contrasts implicitly with remove_item/removed_items by requiring the item to already be removed, but never names the sibling tools to route the agent explicitly.

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 by the precondition 'a removed pick' – the item must already be removed – and the schema hints the id comes from remove_item or removed_items. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g. what to do for a never-removed or already-live item), and no named alternative.

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