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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state transition (document re-enters Files view, becomes editable), idempotency semantics (already-active or unknown ids are a no-op), and cost ('Non-billable'). It stops short of noting permission/authorization requirements, which matters given the undocumented `authorization` parameter.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then building outward to effect, id linkage, idempotency, and billing. Every clause adds decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers state effects, idempotency, cross-tool id consistency, and billing. The remaining gap is the unexplained `authorization` parameter and any indication of what is returned after restore.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `document_id` meaningfully by anchoring it to the same id used by list_documents/archive_document, but it says nothing about the `authorization` parameter or the id's expected format. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Restore (un-archive) a saved document by its id') and explicitly positions itself against a named sibling ('the mirror of archive_document'). An agent can distinguish this from archive_document, delete_document-style tools, and open_documents without opening any 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?

Establishes the context for use (re-entering a document into the Files view) and routes the agent to related tools: archive_document as the inverse, list_documents/archive_document as the id source, and open_documents for the follow-up action. It lacks an explicit 'when-not' clause, but the idempotency note effectively tells the agent not to pre-check state.

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