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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and 'Idempotent on an already-active row' largely restates the idempotency hint while adding the useful nuance that a no-op rather than an error occurs. The 7-day grace window is real behavioral information beyond annotations, but the description omits what happens after expiry, any permission requirements, and whether the restored row's links/history survive.

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 core action and its hard constraint front-loaded. Nothing is restated or padded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool acts on and its key limit. It could be fuller by stating the expected return (presumably the restored story) and the failure mode outside the grace window, but no critical invocation detail is missing.

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?

The single parameter storyId has 100% schema description coverage, including the accepted formats ('ORB-526' or UUID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what is already documented; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a soft-deleted story') with a scope qualifier that separates it from delete_story and from create_story. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of the top band, 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?

'within the 7-day grace window' gives a clear precondition for when this tool applies, and 'soft-deleted' excludes active rows. It stops short of 5 because it never says what to do once the window lapses or names the alternative path (e.g., recreate via create_story).

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