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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the side effect ('restoring it to the default dashboard view'), which is useful context beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't state whether this requires prior archival state, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with the dashboard view for other users.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action verb and the resource, followed immediately by the side effect. 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 simple one-parameter state-change tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It states the primary side effect (restoring to the dashboard view), which is the main behavioral detail an agent needs. Missing only edge cases like idempotency or required prior state.

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 single parameter (id) is fully documented in the schema as 'Id of the Project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Unarchive a project') and names the sibling it is not. An agent can distinguish this from archive_project and other unarchive_* siblings without opening any schema.

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 description implies usage (restoring an archived project to the default dashboard) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tool is named. Implied usage only, which is the definition of a 3.

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