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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully adds the disambiguation 'does not restore deleted data', which prevents a dangerous misreading of the word 'restore'. However it says nothing about what happens if the identified window no longer exists, whether the operation errors or no-ops, or any permission/consent 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 with no filler; the purpose comes first and the clarifying caveat second. Nothing redundant 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter schema is fully documented. The description covers purpose and the key semantic caveat; the only real gap is failure behavior when the target window is gone, which is minor for a low-risk state toggle.

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% with each of the six parameters individually documented, including the backend enum's full semantics, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about how to combine id/app/pid/title for identification, which is the one thing the schema does not clarify.

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 ('application window') plus the source states (minimized or maximized) and target state (normal). It is clearly separable from siblings like window_minimize and window_maximize, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use this to restore...' gives an implied trigger condition, and the phrase 'identified ... window' hints that a window must first be located. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of list_windows as the prerequisite for obtaining an id, and no named alternatives.

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