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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds the key non-obvious behavior: the restore cascades to widgets and the Charts view. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens if the ids are invalid, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; every clause (target, cascade scope, id provenance) carries 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 two-param restore with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what is restored and where the ids come from. Only failure modes (already-live dashboard, stale ids) are 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, with only dashboardId documented in the schema; the description compensates by explaining the provenance of both ids (from dashboard.delete or view.delete's return). That meaningfully extends the undocumented sheetId parameter.

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?

Specific verb ('bring back') plus resource ('deleted dashboard') and explicit scope of what is restored (widgets and Charts view). An agent can tell this apart from widget.restore or dashboard.create without opening the schema.

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?

It indicates the prerequisite provenance of the ids ('by the sheetId and dashboardId dashboard.delete (or view.delete) returned'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when not to use it (e.g. restoring a live dashboard) nor names alternatives such as dashboard.create or widget.restore.

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