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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds useful context by explaining the mutation is a soft-delete reversal (clears deletedAt) and clarifying idempotency is specifically 'on an already-active row' rather than repeating the hint verbatim.

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, scope and effect front-loaded ahead of the idempotency nuance. No wasted words.

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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description provides enough to invoke correctly. A note on permissions or the resulting state after restore would make it fully complete.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage (processId UUID documented), the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (restore) and resource (soft-deleted BPMN process model) with the concrete effect (clears deletedAt). An agent can tell this apart from delete_process and get_process. Slightly short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name the deletion/read siblings it supersedes.

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?

'Soft-deleted' and 'clears deletedAt' imply the tool applies to processes that were deleted, giving implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, so it sits at minimum-viable guidance.

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