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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing the cascade scope (children restored too) and the partial-restore rule (children deleted earlier stay deleted) — neither of which is derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint. It stops short of failure modes and retention limits, and does not restate or conflict with the idempotent hint.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 the safety profile, so the description only needs to carry the restore semantics — which it does. Only minor gaps remain: what happens when the space is not deleted, and whether there is a retention window on restorable spaces.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description should compensate but does not mention spaceId at all. It at least implies the identifier is the deleted space's ID, but does not clarify whether the original ID is reused or how to obtain it.

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 and resource ('Bring back a deleted space') and immediately scopes it: the restore re-includes the folders, sheets and pages removed by the delete cascade. That cascade phrasing distinguishes it from the many item-level restore siblings (folder.restore, page.restore, sheet.restore) without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this follows a space.delete. There is no explicit 'call this after deleting a space', no statement of what to do if the space is not deleted, and no pointer to alternatives. The second sentence is a behavior caveat, not usage guidance.

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