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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — canceled publication jobs are not restarted — and clarifies the resulting state is a working draft.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, and every clause contributes new information (draft outcome, canceled-job behavior) with no redundancy.

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 and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the remaining burden is light. The description covers the trigger, the outcome state, and one edge behavior, though it omits error conditions (e.g., what happens when the post is not archived) and permission requirements.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implies the postId must reference an archived post, which is meaningful, but adds no format, length, or error-handling detail for the ID itself.

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 gives a specific verb (restore) and resource (an archived Postlyra post) plus the resulting state ('as a working draft'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly contrasts with archive_post but never names a sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use when restoring an archived post' supplies a trigger condition (only applies to archived posts), but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of archive_post as the inverse operation, and no prerequisites such as permissions.

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