Recreate a purged collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds two genuinely new facts — 'the old faces are not recovered' (so this is not a true undo) and 'Free' (no quota/credits consumed) — but says nothing about error behavior if the collection is not in deleted status, which is the main failure mode. The 'old faces are not recovered' line is not a contradiction of destructiveHint=false since the deletion already happened, though it does qualify the expectation.

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, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by the two non-obvious caveats. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut 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?

For a single-parameter, non-read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what state is required, what is and is not recovered, and the cost. Only the failure behavior when the precondition is unmet 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents collection_id with examples and allowed characters. The description only adds that the id must be the same one the purged collection had, which is mild reinforcement rather than new semantics. 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 and resource — bring back an empty collection under the same id after full deletion. The parenthetical '(status deleted)' carves out a precise scope that implicitly separates it from restore_collection, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only after the collection is fully deleted / status deleted), which is the key usage gate for a 1-param tool. It stops short of naming restore_collection or create_collection as the alternatives for other states, leaving that routing to inference.

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