LightCMS

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

Adds valuable side-effect disclosure ('Regenerates static page if content was published') beyond what annotations provide (idempotentHint, destructiveHint). However, misses error behavior (what if ID not found/not deleted) and authorization requirements.

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 sentences with zero waste. Main action front-loaded in first sentence; second sentence adds distinct value by describing side effects. Structure is optimal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter state-change operation. Combines clear annotations with description covering the restoration scope and side effects. Lacks error case documentation but acceptable given tool simplicity.

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% with complete parameter documentation ('Content ID (MongoDB ObjectID), required'). Description provides no additional parameter semantics, but baseline 3 is appropriate given schema already documents everything.

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 specific action ('Restore') and resource ('soft-deleted content item'), distinguishing it from sibling create_content. The 'soft-deleted' qualifier clearly scopes the operation to recovery of trashed items versus creating new content.

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?

The term 'soft-deleted' implies prerequisite state, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., create_content) or when not to use (e.g., hard-deleted items). No sibling comparisons or workflow guidance provided.

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