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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's remaining job is behavioral detail. It does add useful restoration semantics – content returns along with the page and it reappears at its original parent location – but it says nothing about permission requirements or what happens if the page was never deleted.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause contributes something – the resource, the content preservation, and the restored location.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description only needs to convey restore semantics, which it does. The gaps are the precondition that the page must be deleted and any permission requirements.

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?

A single required pageId with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions the parameter at all. It is an obvious identifier, but it does not clarify whether the id must reference a currently-deleted page or how a non-trashed id is handled.

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 states a specific verb ('bring back') and resource ('a deleted page') with its scope ('with its content, in the place it was deleted from'). An agent can distinguish this from page.delete or page.update without opening the schema, though nothing in the text distinguishes it from the parallel restore verbs on dashboard, folder, or sheet.

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 is only implied by the word 'deleted' – an agent can infer it applies to a page that already sits in the trash, but the description never states that precondition, nor does it name an alternative such as page.read to verify the page is actually deleted first.

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