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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation restores all archived projects in a group and is the inverse of archive_group, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens if some projects are already active.

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 main action and scope, with zero wasted words. The inverse relationship is included efficiently at the end.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, scope, and inverse sibling. It could add a note on permissions or failure behavior, but nothing essential for invocation 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 100% and the single parameter 'group' is documented as 'The group name'. The description adds only the contextual phrase 'folder group', which aligns with the schema but does not introduce additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('every archived project in a folder group'), and explicitly names the inverse operation ('undoing archive_group'). This lets an agent distinguish it from restore_folder and restore_page without opening schemas.

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 'undoing archive_group' gives clear context for when to use this tool: after archiving a group, call this to reverse it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like restore_folder, but the use case is clear.

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