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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a concrete behavioral detail—restoring the document to the sidebar and default listings—that goes beyond the annotation flags. It does not cover edge cases like whether restored documents reappear in all default views, but for this simple mutation it communicates the primary effect well.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and states the outcome clearly, making it immediately understandable.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with complete schema and annotation coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's effect. It does not discuss return values, but no output schema is present, and the outcome is implied. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (e.g., behavior if the document is not currently archived), but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

The sole parameter 'doc' is fully documented in the schema with accepted formats ('id, or its exact title'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, 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The description clearly states the action ('Bring an archived document back') and the specific effect ('into the sidebar and the default listings'). This distinguishes it from related tools like archive_doc and unarchive_issue by both resource and direction.

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 context 'archived document' implies when to use this tool, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives like unarchive_issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. Usage is clear by context but not explicitly framed.

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