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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be state-changing but not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is state-changing, requires authorization, and restores the archived generation into the visible active list. This goes beyond the annotation defaults without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences carry the trigger condition, the state-changing nature, the authorization requirement, and the parameter prerequisite. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 state-changing tool, the description is complete: it covers when to use it, what effect it has, the authorization note, and where to get the required ID. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter generation_id is already described in the schema. The description adds the important prerequisite of calling list-generations with archived=true first, but this mostly restates the schema's parameter guidance rather than adding substantial new semantics.

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?

The description uses specific verbs ('unarchive, restore, or show') tied to a clear resource ('archived generation') and outcome ('in the active generation list'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like archive-generation and get-generation by describing the restore action rather than creation, retrieval, or archiving.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('when the user wants to unarchive, restore, or show an archived generation again') and gives a prerequisite ('Requires generation_id from list-generations with archived=true'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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