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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important side effects: consuming an active-project slot, error behavior at the limit, idempotency for active projects, and authentication requirements (ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope). This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating operation.

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?

Three dense sentences each add distinct value: purpose, side effects/error behavior, and auth. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage, side effects, error condition, idempotency, ownership prerequisite, and auth requirements. Nothing necessary to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter slug is already described as 'The slug of a project you own.' The description echoes the ownership requirement but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('an archived project you own') and adds the target context ('to the data plane'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like archive_project, create_project, and protect_project.

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 makes the use case clear: restoring an archived project you own. It also notes the slot-limit error condition and idempotency for already-active projects, giving the agent practical context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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