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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the restored prompt joins the next visibility run, and the operation is refused at prompt quota.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: restoring archived state, triggering a visibility run, and quota refusal. Minor edge cases, such as what happens when restoring an already-active prompt, are not covered.

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 only one required parameter, prompt_id, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: restore an archived prompt to active. It also states the functional effect of joining the next visibility run, making it clearly distinct from archive-prompt and other prompt tools.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a prompt is archived and should become active again. It also gives an important when-not condition: the restore is refused when the workspace is at its prompt quota. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or recovery paths.

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