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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, destructive, idempotent flags); the description adds real behaviour beyond them: the object returns to « Mes films » together with its versions, restoration is bounded by bin retention, and a quota precondition can cause refusal. It does not say what a second call on an already-restored film does, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 dense sentences: the effect and the restoring counterpart come first, the failure conditions follow. Minor friction from mixed-language quoting (« Mes films ») and a slightly tangled quota clause, but nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the outcome, the retention boundary and the quota refusal, which is what an agent needs to decide and call correctly. Remaining gaps (behaviour on repeat calls, response shape) are small given the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as the deleted film's id from delete_film's response. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no new syntax, format or constraint information beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('bring back a film') and ties it to the sibling that created the state ('a film delete_film took off the account'), so the inverse relationship is explicit. It does not distinguish itself from other recovery-flavoured siblings such as undo_film or restore_version, so differentiation is partial rather than complete.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context (a film previously deleted via delete_film) plus two explicit when-not conditions: the bin must still hold the film, and the call is refused if the plan's retained films are all used. It stops short of routing the agent to an alternative when those conditions fail (e.g. undo_film or a plan change).

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