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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the restore preserves the widget's settings, and the parent dashboard must be restored first. It omits failure behaviour (already-restored id, deleted dashboard), which keeps it from 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action leading and the dependency note following. Every clause carries information the 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, id provenance and the dashboard-restore prerequisite. Only error/edge-case behaviour is left unstated, which is a minor gap 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% — widgetId is documented, dashboardId is not. The description compensates by attributing both ids to the widget.delete response, which is the missing semantic for dashboardId. The phrasing ('dashboardId and widgetId widget.delete returned') is slightly ambiguous about the dashboardId's exact origin, so not a 5.

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 widget with its settings') and scopes it by the two ids it consumes. It also explicitly names the neighbouring restore tool's role ('A deleted dashboard comes back first with dashboard.restore'), so the agent can separate widget.restore from dashboard.restore without opening schemas.

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?

It says where the arguments come from ('by the dashboardId and widgetId widget.delete returned'), which ties usage to a prior widget.delete call. It also documents the ordering prerequisite with dashboard.restore. It does not state exclusions, e.g. what to do if the widget was never deleted, so not a full 5.

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