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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds real value: the restore does not alter destinations, guests are excluded, the private service credential stays server-side, and mailbox passwords/message content are never returned. It omits idempotency semantics despite the required idempotency_key and does not say what happens if the alias is not currently suspended.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect before the permission and data-handling clauses. Efficient overall, though the credential/password clauses read as boilerplate that recurs across the Commsharbor family rather than information unique to this call.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by stating what is never returned (passwords, message content). Permissions and non-mutation of destinations are covered. What is missing is the response shape for a successful resume and behavior on an already-active or nonexistent alias.

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 100% with three documented parameters (resource_id, idempotency_key, organization_id), so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no per-parameter syntax, format, or sourcing guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a suspended alias') plus a scope constraint ('without changing its destinations') that separates it from sibling operations like commsharbor_email_alias_update and commsharbor_email_alias_suspend. An agent can distinguish this from its siblings 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?

Provides a clear permission context: 'No guest access. Members can read. Owners, admins and organization keys can manage email.' This tells the agent who can invoke the tool. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over alias_update or how it relates to alias_suspend, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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