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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: removal is a soft delete so the column and its data are preserved, and the restore brings the values back. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. what happens if the attribute already exists or was already restored) or permission requirements, so it falls 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the soft-delete mechanic and the prerequisite. Every sentence adds information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 described, and the description covers the key prerequisite (same attributeId) and the state model behind the restore. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and permissions, but the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully specifies that attributeId must be the same ID the field had before removal, but sheetId is left unexplained and no type/format guidance is added. Partial compensation for the coverage gap warrants the baseline 3.

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 (a field/attribute on a sheet), and explicitly ties it to the sibling sheet.remove_attribute that it reverses. An agent can distinguish it from sheet.remove_attribute, sheet.add_attribute and sheet.update_attribute without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to undo a removal you or the user regrets') and identifies the alternative it pairs with by name (sheet.remove_attribute). The condition that selects this tool over its siblings is stated, not inferred.

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