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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: what gets resurrected (questions and settings) and a concrete failure mode (record layouts rejected). Permissions and behavior on an already-live form are not stated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the identifier source, then the exclusion. Nothing is redundant, and no sentence merely repeats the name or schema.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. The only remaining gap for a restore operation is authorization or failure behavior when the form is not deleted, which is minor at this complexity.

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 only 50% – sheetId has no description in the schema – but the description compensates by stating both ids come from the form.delete response, which is the essential semantic an agent needs. It does not restate types or constraints, which is appropriate.

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 (bring back) and resource (a deleted form), and scopes the outcome explicitly: questions and settings are restored. It also names form.delete as the origin of the identifiers and rules out record layouts, which separates it from every sibling in the list.

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 description makes the precondition clear (the form must have been deleted, with ids from form.delete's response) and gives a when-not case: record layouts are refused. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for layouts or stating permission requirements, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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