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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the description's added detail about clearing archived_at and restoring visibility is useful behavioral context. It does not cover permission requirements or response details, but the output schema helps.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loading the verb and resource before describing effects and the inverse sibling. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple idempotent restore tool with a complete input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the state effect and sibling relationship well. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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 slug and tenant_slug documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Restore (un-archive) a project'), spells out the concrete effect (clears archived_at so it returns to active listings, sidebar, and dashboard count), and explicitly names the inverse sibling kb_projects_archive. This is enough to distinguish it from archive/delete/hide siblings.

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 description clearly frames usage as reversing kb_projects_archive and restoring a project to active status. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like delete/hide, so it falls short of a full 5.

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