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

The description explicitly claims 'Idempotent -- restoring a view that is already active is a no-op rather than an error,' but the annotation declares idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts a structured behavioral field, which is a serious transparency failure despite the otherwise useful auth and scope details.

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?

The definition is compact and front-loaded: it states the effect first, then idempotency behavior, then discovery guidance, then auth requirements. Every sentence carries actionable information without padding.

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?

The description covers purpose, discovery, auth, and scope, which is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it gives misleading idempotency information and does not mention the optional expected_revision parameter or the return behavior, leaving gaps for an agent invoking a write operation with no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both view_id and expected_revision in detail. The description adds only indirect context for view_id by referring to archived saved views and list_saved_views; it says nothing about expected_revision, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return one of YOUR OWN archived saved views to the working set with its definition intact.' This clearly distinguishes restore_saved_view from siblings like archive_saved_view, delete_saved_view, and update_saved_view.

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?

It states when this tool applies (restoring an archived saved view) and tells the agent how to find candidates via list_saved_views with scope=archived. It also names required authentication and the tickets:write scope, though it does not explicitly exclude or compare against other alternatives.

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