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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact 'previously archived' establishing a state precondition, but says nothing about failure modes (board not archived, already active), permission requirements, or whether tasks/members are restored with the board. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the action plus the precondition are front-loaded. It is efficient but slightly under-specified rather than padded; nothing in it is wasted.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present but the edges are unresolved: what happens if the board is not archived, what permissions are needed, and what state the restored board returns in. These are reasonable gaps for a simple tool but leave an agent guessing at the failure path.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Board ID to restore.'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning such as where to obtain the board_id or whether archived boards appear in list_boards. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 action ('recover') and a specific resource ('a previously archived board'), which clearly ties it to the sibling archive_board as its inverse. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings like restore_task, so the agent must infer the board-vs-task distinction from the resource noun alone.

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?

'Use this to recover a previously archived board' implies the triggering condition (the board is currently archived), which is meaningful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not, no mention of what to do if the board is not archived, and no note on required permissions or ownership.

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