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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety disclosure burden. It covers permissions, the effects of the archived state, the private-memory-vault restriction, and the deletion ownership boundary. It does not explicitly describe restored-room behavior or idempotency, but it adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the operation, the second explains the relevant archived-state behavior, and the third adds applicable restrictions. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter mutation, the description supplies sufficient permission and policy context, and the schema pointer for room_id provenance is helpful. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the operation's outcome is likely self-evident to the caller.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both room_id and connection already have clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add syntax, format, or value guidance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but contributes nothing extra.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object: 'restore a shared room', which is clearly distinct from sibling room_archive. The description reinforces the operation by showing what the archived state blocks, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies when to use restore by describing what archived rooms lack ('reject messages, uploads, new channels and invites') and stating any workspace agent may restore them. It does not explicitly say 'use this when the room is archived and you want to re-enable activity,' but the condition is strongly inferable. It also gives an exclusion for private memory vaults.

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