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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine precondition (document must be archived) and states the resulting state change, though it does not spell out reversibility or that archiving is the inverse operation.

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?

Front-loads the effect in the first sentence, then uses tight bullets for the when-to-use conditions. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or restated title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, the single parameter is fully described, and the prerequisite plus discovery path are covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single document_uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the fallback to list-documents. The description restates the same guidance rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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States a specific verb and resource ("Restores an archived document") plus the concrete observable effect (it reappears in default document lists). The inverse relationship to the archive-document sibling is made explicit through "restore or unarchive," so an agent can distinguish the pair without opening either 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 explicit when-to-use bullets and a hard precondition ("The document must currently be archived"). It goes further by telling the agent how to locate archived documents via the list-documents tool with filter_archived_state, closing the loop on the alternative path.

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