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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining cascade restoration and the parent-folder ordering requirement.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the cascade scope is front-loaded, followed immediately by the parent-folder prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so return values and basic behavior do not need to be restated. The main remaining gap is folderId parameter semantics, but overall the description is sufficient for a two-parameter restore operation.

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 description coverage is only 50%: spaceId is described, but folderId has no schema description. The prose does not explain parameter formats or requiredness beyond what the names imply, so it does not compensate for the undocumented folderId.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Bring back,' and a specific resource, 'deleted folder,' plus its cascade scope: subfolders, sheets, and pages removed by the delete. This clearly distinguishes it from folder.delete and from restore siblings for other resource types.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: restore the parent folder first when that parent is also deleted. It does not name alternative restore tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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