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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds a genuine behavioral trait not present in structured data: the authorization requirement ('creator or admin only'), plus the state effect of restoring prices. It omits what happens on a repeat call despite idempotentHint=false.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisites immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, effect, prerequisites, and permissions. The main residual gap is error/repeat-call behavior implied by idempotentHint=false, which an agent would want before retrying.

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 0% and neither property is documented, so the description carries the burden. It only restates the two parameter names and that they are required, which duplicates the schema's required array, and adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance.

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 (unarchive / put back on offer) and resource (membership tier), and the phrase 'at its prices' conveys the exact effect of restoration. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling archive_membership_tier and list_membership_tiers without opening any 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?

Names the required inputs and the permission gate ('creator or admin only'), which tells the agent when this call is even legal. It does not explicitly contrast with archive_membership_tier or say what to do if the tier is already active, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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