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

The description adds the state transition 'back to active' and the single-type constraint, which is useful. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; no additional behavioral detail such as idempotency or partial failure handling is provided.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and scope are immediately clear.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly richer by explicitly noting that this reverses an archive operation, but nothing required to invoke it 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%, so the input schema fully documents ids and type, including the enum values. The description's 'of one type' reinforces the type parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('archived items of one type'), and specifies the outcome ('back to active'). This clearly differentiates it from the many archive_* sibling tools, which perform the opposite operation.

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: use this when archived items of a single type should become active again. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative tool, leaving the agent to infer the inverse relationship with archive_* tools.

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