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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with "State-changing" and adds the authorization requirement, which annotations do not cover. It does not describe the result of the restore, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid addition.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: trigger condition front-loaded, then state-changing behavior, then the prerequisite. Every sentence 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 single-parameter action tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to use it, the prerequisite, and the state-changing/authorization nature. It omits what the restore returns, but no output schema exists to lean on, so this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's schema description already says to call list-generations with archived=true first. The description merely repeats that prerequisite, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 a specific verb (restore/unarchive) and resource (generation), and the framing as the inverse of archiving makes the contrast with the sibling archive-generation obvious. An agent can identify the operation 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?

"Use this when the user wants to unarchive, restore, or show an archived generation again in the active generation list" gives a clear trigger condition. It also routes the agent to list-generations with archived=true for the ID. No explicit when-not guidance, so it stops short of 5.

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