Restore a deleted GCP project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important ~30-day retention window, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about required IAM permissions, what state the project is restored to, or error behavior when the window has expired.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The operation and its key constraint are packed into one efficient line.

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-optional-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation and its critical time constraint adequately. Minor gaps remain around permissions and post-restore state, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 optional projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its env-var default. The description adds no parameter detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 ('Restores') and resource ('project'), distinguishing it from gcp_delete_project and gcp_create_project by explicitly noting the soft-delete context. The scope is clear, though it doesn't name sibling tools to route against.

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 '~30 day retention window' implicitly tells the agent when this succeeds versus when it can't be used, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., use gcp_create_project if the window has lapsed) or prerequisites.

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