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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context: the underlying mechanism is clearing deletedAt, and it spells out what idempotency means concretely (an already-active row is left as-is). What it omits is whether the restore requires specific permissions or whether related links/attachments are restored alongside the design.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the idempotency caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, non-destructive mutation with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so the return shape (e.g., the restored design object) is not described anywhere.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('UUID of the UI design'). The description adds no format hints, validation rules, or failure behavior for an invalid or hard-deleted designId, 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?

Specific verb (restore) plus specific resource (soft-deleted UI design), and the parenthetical '(clears deletedAt)' pins down the exact effect. Among the many restore_* siblings the resource noun alone disambiguates it from restore_diagram, restore_process, etc.

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 phrase 'soft-deleted UI design' implies the precondition and 'idempotent on an already-active row' tells the agent it is safe to call on a live design, which is useful guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over re-creating or updating a design, nor names any alternative tool.

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