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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. Beyond that, the description adds the authorization requirements (missions:write scope and config:write capability), which the agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of describing what happens if the mission is not currently archived or whether the call is reversible.

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 sentences, no filler. The behavioral effect is front-loaded, with the authorization requirement following as a secondary constraint. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the authorization path, and the visible outcome (list and board). It leaves unaddressed what happens on a non-archived mission or on permission failure, but annotations already carry the safety profile, so the gap is minor.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including the Linear key / GitHub id format example ('SHIP-412'). The description adds no additional meaning about issueId beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action (unarchive) on a specific resource (mission) and names the concrete observable effect: the mission reappears in list_missions and on the board. This implicitly and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling archive_mission, which does the opposite. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 description gives the precondition context — it operates on an archived mission and requires the missions:write scope plus the config:write capability — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not explicitly name archive_mission as the inverse alternative or state error behavior, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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