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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the 'write operation' clause is partly redundant. However, the description adds real context beyond the annotations: the user-management permission requirement and the concrete endpoint path. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, action front-loaded with limitations following. Mostly waste-free, though 'restores/reopens' is slightly redundant and the 'write operation' clause duplicates what annotations already convey.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 83% param coverage, the definition covers purpose, endpoint, and the key auth requirement. It omits side effects on related data (e.g. reactivated assignments) and error conditions, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only surfaces user_id implicitly via the endpoint path and adds no format/semantics beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (restores/reopens) and resource (an archived user), and even names the API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling restore_* tools (restore_customer, restore_project, restore_task, restore_event) and from archive_user, its inverse.

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 implies the condition of use ('an archived user') but gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives or prerequisites beyond the permission note. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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