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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the requestId reuse rule and the conflict/reload protocol. It also discloses the required permission scope, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing the response payload, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct operational information, with the action stated first and the caveats (permission, conflict, retry) following in priority order. 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, preconditions, permission, concurrency handling, and idempotency. The only real gap is what the call returns on success, which is minor given the tool's narrow scope.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for all four parameters. It meaningfully explains expectedUpdatedAt (source: get_ticket) and requestId (idempotency key, reuse only for identical retry), but projectId and cardId are left entirely to the schema's type/format constraints.

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 (Restore) and resource (archived ticket) plus the resulting state ('existing column and position'), which distinguishes it from sibling mutations like create_ticket or update_ticket. The scope limit 'An active ticket is unchanged' further sharpens what this tool does and does not touch.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions and workflow: obtain expectedUpdatedAt from get_ticket, reload on ticket_conflict, and requires tickets:write. The requestId reuse rule tells the caller exactly how to retry versus start a new operation, which is precisely the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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