Databases Undrop Database

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds only "using Time Travel," leaving the retention window, permission requirements, and behavior when the name is re-taken or the window has expired unstated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the Time Travel retention caveat, which materially affects whether the call can succeed, but overall the definition is serviceable for a one-parameter restore.

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 `name` parameter is carefully documented in the schema (quoting non-uppercase names exactly as list tools return them). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (recently dropped database) plus the underlying mechanism (Time Travel), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name siblings such as databases_drop_database or databases_create_database to differentiate, but the name and wording make the inverse-of-drop relationship obvious.

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?

"Recently dropped" hints at a Time Travel retention constraint but never states it, and there is no guidance on what to do if the retention window has expired or whether create_database/clone_database is the fallback. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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