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 by structured data. The description adds genuine context beyond those annotations: a plan-based cap on active clients that can cause the call to fail. It does not describe auth requirements or exact failure behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operative constraint. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 restore tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and the key business constraint. What is missing is failure/limit-exceeded behavior and any note on the target identifier, which are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the single required parameter clientId is never mentioned or explained in the description. The name is largely self-evident, but with no schema coverage the description was obliged to compensate and does not, so it provides no added parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb-action and resource: bringing an archived client back to the active list, which is unambiguous about the operation and clearly the inverse of archive_client in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, so it clears the bar without earning a 5.

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 use case is implied (a client is archived and must be reactivated), and the description adds a real precondition via the free-plan limit of 2 active clients. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as add_attachment-style routing, so guidance remains implied rather than directive.

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