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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent write semantics; the description adds the concrete effect (archived_at is cleared) rather than merely restating the name. It does not cover failure modes on a non-archived document, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the state effect, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by adding either scope or sibling differentiation.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain returns or permissions. For a simple three-parameter mutation it is nearly complete, missing only what happens if the document is not archived (error vs. no-op).

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 the schema thoroughly documents document_id, tenant_slug, and include_body, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description contributes only the archived_at semantic, which is the appropriate baseline-3 level of value when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) on a specific resource (soft-archived document) and even names the state change (clears archived_at). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling kb_documents_archive by calling itself the reverse of it.

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 'reverse of kb_documents_archive' framing plus the schema's 'must be archived' precondition gives clear context for when to call this. There is no explicit statement of what to do instead if the document is already active, but the usage path is unambiguous.

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