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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: revoked credentials and provisioner tokens remain revoked, and instances can be re-enrolled. This clarifies what restore does not recover, which is important for an agent reasoning about side effects.

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?

The definition is two tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat about credentials placed immediately after. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose and key side effects, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. It does not describe the response shape, which is a minor gap in the absence of an output schema.

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 one parameter, agent_slug, and the schema already documents it fully with a reference to list_agents. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the high schema coverage supports the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: restoring an archived agent to active. It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like archive_agent and update_agent by naming the archived-to-active transition.

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 phrase 'Restore an archived agent to active' gives a clear precondition and implied usage context, so an agent knows this applies to archived agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_agent or archive_agent, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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