Restore a deleted workspace

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the description only needs to add context. It usefully adds that the workspace comes back to its original location ready to open, but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or what happens on a repeat call despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

One short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (trash, original location, ready to open) carries distinct meaning.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, source, and outcome are all stated. The remaining gap is error/precondition handling and alternatives, which is minor at this complexity.

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%, so the single 'name' parameter is fully documented as 'the workspace's name, as the person calls it.' The description adds no matching or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Put ... back') and resource ('a deleted workspace'), plus the source ('Sameway's trash') and resulting state ('where it was, ready to open'). This implicitly separates it from open_workspace and add_workspace, though neither sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this applies to previously deleted workspaces. There is no statement of when-not to use it, no mention of open_workspace/add_workspace as alternatives, and no note about prerequisites such as the workspace actually being in the trash.

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