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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does disclose real side effects: the project reappears in the default listing and again counts against the quota. It omits permission/auth requirements and any error behavior for invalid ids, but the quota/visibility consequences are solid behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and its effect front-loaded before the discovery tip. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the state change, quota effect, and id-discovery path. For a single-parameter restore tool this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It indirectly explains where an id comes from (list_projects with include_archived=true) but does not state the id format or that it must reference an archived project, leaving a gap.

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 ('Restore an archived project') in the first clause and immediately distinguishes it from the inverse sibling archive_project by describing the resulting state change. An agent can identify its role 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?

Implies the usage context (reversing an archive) and adds a concrete operational tip: pass include_archived=true to list_projects to obtain archived project ids. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' condition, e.g. handling of projects that were never archived, keeping it short of a 5.

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