Restore a deleted collection

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds context annotations cannot express: the exact failure modes (purge started, compliance erasure) and the cost note ('Free'). It does not say what state the collection is returned in or whether membership/photos are preserved, which is the one meaningful 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 with zero filler: the operation and its window come first, then the failure conditions, then the cost note. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 output schema, the description covers preconditions, failure modes, and cost, which is most of what an agent needs. A brief note on the resulting state of the restored collection would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage, with format constraints and examples), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no meaning about collection_id beyond what is already structured, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Undo a soft delete' on a collection) plus the precondition that defines the operation, which separates it from delete_collection and get_collection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling recreate_collection, which is the closest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 both a positive condition (collection still in its grace period, status deletion_pending) and negative conditions (purge has started, compliance erasure), which is real when-to-use guidance. It never names an alternative tool such as recreate_collection for the post-purge case, so the routing advice is incomplete.

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