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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's second sentence largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive detail is that restoration applies to 'soft-deleted' rows, implying a hard-delete boundary. No information on error behavior for unknown IDs or on what is returned.

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 primary action stated first and the idempotency caveat second. Nothing could be trimmed.

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, non-destructive state-flip with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps remain around the failure mode for a nonexistent or already-active ID and whether the restored record is returned.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as the test case UUID. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 test case') that is unambiguously the inverse of stride.delete_test_case and distinct from update_test_case. The 'soft-deleted' qualifier narrows scope well, though it does not explicitly name the counterpart sibling.

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' implies the precondition (the record must be in a deleted state), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that hard-deleted cases cannot be restored, and no pointer to get_test_case or list_test_cases for verifying state first.

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