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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the quota precondition and the atomic failure semantics ('if restoring it would exceed the plan limit the call fails and nothing changes'). It omits permission/auth requirements, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the constraint and the reference link. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the inverse relationship, the precondition and the failure behavior. Only auth/permission expectations are left unstated.

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 schema only supplies the name, UUID format and pattern for worker_id. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, though the single parameter is self-evident from its name and the tool's purpose.

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+resource ('Reverse archive_worker and put the worker back into active service') and explicitly names the sibling operation it undoes. An agent can distinguish this from archive_worker and delete_worker without inspecting 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?

Clearly frames the operation as the inverse of archive_worker, which implies when to use it, and adds a concrete precondition (organization worker quota must allow it). No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative routing, so it falls 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.