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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive state-change semantics the annotations cannot express: where each kind reappears (default dashboard, back of active planning order, Deliveries page plus public surfaces) and the workflow-run restriction.

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 action is front-loaded in the first line and the bullets are one line each, matching the seven-value enum without filler. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of outcome disclosure and does so per kind. Minor gaps remain around failure cases (record not archived, unknown id) and permission requirements, but an agent can invoke it correctly as written.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is documented generically in the schema, but the description goes further by mapping each of the seven enum values to its distinct post-unarchive behavior, which is exactly the information needed to choose the right kind. The only untouched parameter, id, is self-explanatory.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Unarchive one record by kind and id') and the per-kind bullets make the scope concrete. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_idea, which handles declined ideas rather than archived ones.

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 bullets give the condition under which each kind applies and route the declined-idea case to restore_idea, plus a real usage constraint ('During an active workflow run, accepted only in its self-improvement stage'). It stops short of stating general when-not-to-use cases (e.g. record not currently archived) or error behavior.

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