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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: an sp_ API key on a paid plan is required, the restored drop persists without expiry while on Pro, and free accounts receive a 402 subscription_required with an upgrade_url. It does not explain the non-idempotent behavior flagged in annotations (e.g., what happens if the drop is already active or the slug is wrong), which is the main remaining 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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by auth requirements and error semantics. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: plan/API-key requirements, persistence after restore, and the 402 failure mode. It could be complete with a note on failure when the drop is not expired or is not owned by the account.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines 'slug' as the subdomain part of the drop URL. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bring back an expired drop') plus the ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated account'). This clearly separates it from siblings like claim_drop, list_drops, and delete_drop without needing to open 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?

Gives clear usage context — restoring an expired drop regardless of how long ago it expired — and implies the preconditions (expired state, ownership, paid plan). It does not explicitly name an alternative such as claim_drop or say what to do when the drop is not expired, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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