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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so safety and repeat-call semantics are covered structurally. The description adds only the inverse-of-archive framing; it does not say whether tools, knowledge, or sharing settings come back with the agent, nor what happens if the id is not archived.

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 with no filler, and the precondition is front-loaded in the phrasing. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves behavioral detail on the table rather than being optimal for a mutation tool.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential what and precondition. Remaining gaps (restored scope, error behavior for non-archived ids) are modest but not trivial for a state-changing tool.

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% for the single agent_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the constraint that the id must belong to an archived agent, which is a small but real clarification beyond the schema's 'The archived agent's id.'

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 states a specific verb ('bring back') and resource ('an agent archived'), and names the sibling archive_agent as the inverse operation, so the agent can place it immediately. It stops short of saying what state the agent returns in, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 through the precondition 'archived with archive_agent or on the dashboard,' which usefully signals that the target must already be archived regardless of how it was archived. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of related tools such as restore_version or restore_workflow that could be confused with it.

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