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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description adds the concrete state change (clears archived_at) that the agent needs to reason about effect. Minor gaps remain, e.g. whether restoring an already-live attachment is a no-op, but the idempotent hint covers that reasonably.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the state effect, then the inverse relationship. No filler.

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 an output schema present and a fully documented schema, the description only needs to convey purpose, effect, and the inverse relationship, and it does all three. It could add one clause about failure or no-op behavior when the target is not archived, but that is a small omission.

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 tenant_slug and attachment_uuid are already fully documented, including the archived precondition on the UUID. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (soft-archived attachment), and even names the mechanism it undoes (clears archived_at). The explicit 'reverse of kb_attachments_archive' distinguishes it cleanly from its sibling.

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?

The 'soft-archived' qualifier and the 'reverse of kb_attachments_archive' pointer give a clear condition for use and route the agent away from the archive sibling. It does not state what to do if the attachment is not archived, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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