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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information beyond that: restoration makes the board visible on everyone's dashboard, not just the owner's. It still omits failure behavior for boards that are not archived or not owned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and effect, and every clause carries information (what is restored, prerequisite, visibility consequence). No waste.

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 mutation with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the effect and the ownership prerequisite, and annotations cover the destructive profile. Minor gaps remain around non-archived boards and permission failures, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single boardId parameter, so the description must compensate. It contributes the ownership constraint ('the user owns') and the archived-state constraint, but adds no format or identification guidance beyond that, leaving partial compensation only.

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 (restores) and resource (archived board) plus the ownership precondition, which cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse archive_board and from delete_board. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by 'archived board' (use this to undo an archive), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or guidance on alternatives such as duplicate_board or get_board if the board is not archived. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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