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

Beyond annotations (non-destructive, idempotent), the description discloses the important post-condition that the workflow returns in a disabled state and the ordering prerequisite for a deleted sheet. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 core action, then the post-state, then the prerequisite. No filler or repetition of the name.

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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs the behavioral gaps - which it fills (disabled state, sheet prerequisite). Minor gap: no mention of permissions or behavior when a live workflow ID is supplied.

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 100% and the single workflowId parameter is already documented as "a deleted workflow, from workflow.list deleted." The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Bring back a deleted workflow with its steps and versions" gives a specific verb (restore) plus resource and scope (steps and versions included), which distinguishes it from workflow.delete, workflow.read, and from sibling restore tools for other resources.

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 states the condition (a deleted workflow) and routes the agent forward: workflow.publish to turn it back on, and restore the sheet first if that is also deleted. That is clear when-to-use and next-step guidance, though it doesn't say what to do if the workflow was never deleted.

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