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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the restored idea lands at the BACK of the active planning order, which an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing permissions or a response.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the disambiguation note follows immediately. Every clause 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing context (where the idea returns to, and the unarchive alternative). A brief note on the source state (declined) or permissions would make it fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter (id), and schema coverage is 100% with its own description, so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (restore) and resource (declined idea) and adds the placement outcome (back of the active planning order). It also names the sibling that handles a different case (unarchive for archived ideas), letting an agent distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 second sentence gives a clear routing rule: archived ideas are restored with 'unarchive', implying this tool is for declined ideas. That is a genuine when/when-not signal, though it doesn't mention the counterpart action (decline_idea) that puts an idea into this state or any prerequisites.

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