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

With destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description contributes a genuine behavioral detail: the restored instruction is placed at the back of the active list, not its old position. That ordering effect is not derivable from annotations or schema and is useful operational context.

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 the action first and the consequential side effect second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. It leaves minor gaps around error behavior (e.g., already-active instructions) and required permissions.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier-source detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (unarchive) and resource (instruction document), making the inverse relationship to the sibling archive_instruction obvious from the name. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names a differentiating sibling or scope boundary.

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 by the name and the framing 'returning it to the back of the active list' signals the intended state transition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites for a previously archived instruction.

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