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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the observable outcome (reappearance in the default listing), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure modes.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The trailing '[#f0d74b]' hex artifact is stray noise that slightly detracts from an otherwise clean structure.

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 restore mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the effect and a discovery path, and annotations carry the idempotency/open-world profile. Adequate for correct invocation, though it omits auth/permission expectations and error behavior.

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% with both parameters documented (design_uuid, workspace). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (restore) and resource (design) and clarifies the effect: the design reappears in the default gallery listing. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like archive_design and delete_design.

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 clear context for when to use it (to un-archive a design) and routes the agent to list_my_designs(archived=true) to find candidates. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions versus delete or move tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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