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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose a key trait: 'no LLM cost — pure DB write', and the visible effect on default listings. It does not discuss auth, idempotency, or error behavior, but this is a simple write operation and the core side effects are stated.

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 short and scannable, with the main action and effect stated in one sentence. The first sentence contains slightly redundant context ('Aurora agent surface', 'Only relevant when managing Aurora agents'), so it is not perfectly optimized, but there is no real waste.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this is mostly complete: purpose, effect, and addressing mode are covered. The only notable ambiguity is that the schema marks both parameters as optional while the description's XOR implies exactly one is required; spelling that out explicitly would make it fully complete.

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 100% and both parameters already carry their own descriptions plus XOR hints. The description restates the XOR relationship but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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') with a clear resource ('an archived agent') and an observable outcome ('appears in default agent listings again'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like archive_agent and list_agents, even without naming them.

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?

It gives clear context: use this only when managing Aurora agents and specifically when an archived agent should be made visible again. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the inverse relationship to archive_agent makes the intended use case fairly obvious.

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