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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing that settings come back and that restoring a Charts view cascades to its dashboard and widgets. It doesn't mention permissions or whether the restore target position/owner is preserved, keeping it 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the cascade behavior front-loaded after the core action. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (cascading restore of dashboard/widgets). Minor gaps remain around scope constraints such as whether the parent sheet must still exist.

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 50%: viewId is fully described in the schema, but sheetId has no description there. The description links both ids to view.delete's return value, which helps, but it never clarifies that sheetId is the sheet the view belongs to — leaving the undocumented parameter only half compensated.

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+resource ('Bring back a deleted view') and scopes it to views, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling sheet.restore, widget.restore, and dashboard.restore. The added note that a Charts view returns with its dashboard and widgets sharpens what 'restore' means here.

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?

Implies the correct usage sequence by saying the ids are the ones 'view.delete returned', which anchors it as the undo of a delete. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., restore window limits, or what to do if the view still exists) but the context is clear enough to select it.

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