Restore deleted Wiki page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the return payload (numeric ``id``, permanent ``slug``, ``pages_count``) and that the restore cascades to child pages. It doesn't explicitly warn that the token is consumed or that repeat calls fail, which would fully explain the non-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?

Front-loads the action ("Undo a page delete") before the mechanics, then uses two tight sentences for token provenance, return values and request shape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the restored page's id, slug, and the pages_count of cascaded restores. Combined with token provenance and request shape, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents the token as the UUID4 returned by ``pages_delete``, so the description's token guidance is largely redundant. It does clarify that the token is passed in the path with no request body, which is marginally useful but not substantial.

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 action and resource: undo a page delete and restore the page, with the recovery token as the mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_pages_delete and wiki_pages_create, and even names the tool whose output feeds it.

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?

Explains the operative condition clearly: the token comes from ``pages_delete`` and is the only handle to the deleted page, so an agent knows this tool only applies after a delete with a token in hand. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases or token expiry semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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