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

Goes well past annotations by disclosing that the restore is not immediate but staged as a proposal under the existing review/publication policy, that the document becomes loaded and counted again, that no content is deleted, and what comes back (proposal plus reference warnings). The annotations' destructiveHint=false is reinforced rather than contradicted, though the non-idempotent hint alongside a required idempotency_key is never reconciled.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences that front-load the effect and the proposal-staging caveat, with no filler. Capitalized emphasis on COMPLETE is functional but borderline; otherwise efficient.

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?

Adequate on outcome and side effects, and it compensates partially for the missing output schema by naming the return payload. For an 8-parameter, 7-required mutation with zero schema documentation, however, the description leaves too much of the invocation contract unexplained.

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% across 8 parameters, and the description only explains two of them (document_id and base_revision, the latter only as 'current'). The crucial orchestration fields — rationale, evidence, contract_version, idempotency_key, result_offset, project_id — get no meaning or format guidance anywhere.

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States a specific verb and resource: bringing an archived document back among active documents, with the 'COMPLETE' qualifier narrowing which archived documents qualify. It never names archive_document (the natural inverse) or any other sibling, so the agent must infer the pairing from the name 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?

Usage is implied by the 'COMPLETE archived document' constraint, which suggests incompletely archived or otherwise-stated documents are out of scope, but no alternative tool is named for those cases. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite listing beyond the required ids.

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