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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the idempotency sentence largely repeats structured data. The description does add real value by disclosing the underlying effect ('clears deletedAt'), but says nothing about permissions or the response.

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, zero filler, with the state-changing effect front-loaded ahead of the idempotency note. 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 state-change tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, precondition and repeat-call behavior. The only gap is what the tool returns, which is not covered by an output schema either.

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 release'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 release') and adds the mechanism '(clears deletedAt)', which clearly separates it from update_release or get_release. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 release' gives the explicit precondition for calling it, and 'Idempotent on an already-active row' tells the agent it is safe to call without checking state first. No alternatives (e.g., update_release) are named, so no exclusion guidance exists.

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