restore_time_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the permission requirement (blocks:write scope), the irreversibility after 14 days, and the side effect of reattaching files. It stops short of saying how failures present (e.g., block already restored or window expired), which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, action first, then sourcing guidance, then the constraint and permission. No redundant or filler content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, permission, and the recovery-window limit. It omits error/response behavior, but everything needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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's description already points to list_deleted_time_blocks, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is correct for a one-param tool with full schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb ('Put ... back') plus resource ('a deleted time block') with the attached-file side effect called out, which cleanly distinguishes it from delete_time_block and update_time_block. An agent can pick this over its siblings without reading any schema.

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?

It names the companion tool that produces the required input (list_deleted_time_blocks) and states the hard usage boundary (14-day recovery window, after which the block is unrecoverable). No explicit 'when not to use this vs. another restore path' exists, but the prerequisites are clear.

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