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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description's disclosure of the resulting state machine (CLOSED vs ACTIVE depending on provider connectivity) is genuinely additive behavior the annotations cannot express. It does not mention permissions/auth requirements, which is the remaining 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the conditional follow-up is compressed into one sentence with no filler. The trailing token "[#468f04]" is stray noise that slightly dents an otherwise tight description.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what state the store ends up in after the call, and it covers the follow-up path via activate_store. Only auth/error conditions are left unspecified, which is a minor omission for a two-parameter restore operation.

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 both parameters (workspace, store_uuid) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or scoping detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (archived store), and the post-condition (returns as CLOSED, or ACTIVE if a fulfillment provider remains connected) makes it unambiguous against the sibling archive_store. An agent can distinguish it without opening the 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 explicitly routes the agent onward: if the store lands CLOSED, connect a provider and call activate_store to reopen it. Naming the sibling tool plus the condition that selects it is exactly the when/when-next guidance an agent needs.

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