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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that tags, folder membership, and the original id are preserved on restore. It does not cover the failure case (entry not in Trash, id collision), which leaves a small behavioral gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core effect front-loaded and the discovery pointer trailing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter restore with no output schema, the description supplies the essential effect and preservation semantics plus a discovery route. A brief note on the return value or the not-in-Trash case would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the schema already states the parameter accepts an id from any other tool's output or an exact title. The description's 'under its old id' adds a little contextual meaning about what the id refers to post-restore, but does not add syntax or disambiguation beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Bring an entry back from the Trash') and scopes the outcome ('with its tags and folder, under its old id'). This is clearly distinguishable from trash_note and the list_* siblings without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to 'list_notes with trash: true' as the way to discover what is restorable, which is a genuine usage precondition rather than a bare restatement. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what happens if the entry is not in the Trash), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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