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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutability and safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: previously canceled publication jobs are not restarted, which tells the agent the restore is partial and won't revive scheduling side effects. That is real value beyond the structured fields.

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, no filler: the trigger is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain the return value, and it does cover the outcome state, the safety-relevant side effect, and the trigger. The only gap is the absence of a stated precondition (that the post must currently be archived) or a pointer to sibling tools for the non-restore cases.

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 there is a single required postId whose provenance (search_posts/search_post_drafts/create_post_draft) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct rather than earned credit.

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 ('restoring') plus the resource ('an archived Postlyra post') and the resulting state ('as a working draft'), which is exactly what distinguishes it from archive_post and update_post_draft. An agent can pick it out of a 40-tool sibling list without opening the 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?

The 'Use when restoring an archived post' clause gives a clear triggering condition, and the second sentence implicitly bounds the scope by excluding publication restarts. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. 'to permanently remove, use delete_post') or a precondition such as the post needing to be archived first.

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