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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and non-readOnly; the description reinforces this with concrete behavior ('Idempotent on an already-active row') and explains the side effect (clears deletedAt). It stops short of describing error behavior for a nonexistent diagramId or any 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key operational caveat. No filler or redundant 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 single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and the idempotency nuance. The main remaining gap is what happens on a bad/unknown ID (error vs. no-op), which matters for safe retry logic.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('UUID of the diagram'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the concept of a deleted diagram, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Restore a soft-deleted architecture diagram') and clarifies the underlying mechanism ('clears deletedAt'), so an agent knows this un-deletes rather than creates. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. stridedelete_diagram or get_diagram), but the operation is unambiguous.

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: call this when a diagram was soft-deleted and should be brought back. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor guidance on preconditions (e.g. checking via get_diagram that the row is actually deleted) or what to do if the ID is unknown.

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