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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the permission model (send permission required for a restored open autopilot event, write permission otherwise), explains that the tool sends nothing itself yet rejoins automatic reminders, and documents the nightly re-archiving side effect. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by genuinely load-bearing caveats about re-archiving and permissions. Every sentence adds a decision-relevant fact with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: id source, permission requirements, and the re-archiving quirk. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter restore operation.

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%, and the single event_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the id's source but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('Brings an archived event back to the live list') and anchors it to the dashboard's own 'Restore'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling archive_event (the inverse operation). No schema opening is needed to understand what it does.

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?

Tells the agent exactly which id to supply (from list_events with archived:true) and warns that events with all-past dates get re-archived by the nightly sweep unless a future date is added. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is unambiguous for an agent choosing between archive/restore operations.

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