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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the specific field cleared (archived_at) and the observable effect (group reappears in listings and sidebar), which tells the agent the change is reversible and non-destructive.

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 clauses, zero filler, with the core action and its effect front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by adding either mechanism or the inverse-tool pointer.

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 annotations carry the safety/idempotency profile, so the description needn't explain returns. For a 2-param, non-destructive restore, this covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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 slug plus the multi-tenant tenant_slug guidance are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so 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/un-archive) and resource (group), plus the concrete mechanism: clears archived_at so the group returns to active listings and the sidebar. It explicitly names the inverse sibling kb_groups_archive, so an agent can distinguish it from archive/delete without opening a 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?

The phrase 'Reverses kb_groups_archive' gives a clear condition for use and points at the alternative tool. It doesn't state when-not to use it (e.g. versus kb_groups_delete or restore on an already-active group), but the context is unambiguous for this operation.

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