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

The description explains the state change ('archived ... to active') and adds the access requirement ('must be a host'), which is useful beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It could further detail the exact effects (e.g., pricing restoration), but the core behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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 a single sentence of under 20 words, front-loading the action and prerequisites. Every word is necessary, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisites. It doesn't discuss return values or error cases, but for a straightforward mutation, it is largely 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?

With 0% schema parameter descriptions, the description compensates minimally by mentioning that event_id and tier_id are required, but it adds no additional meaning (like format, purpose) beyond the schema. It ties them to the action but lacks detail.

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') and resource ('archived ticket tier') to clearly state the tool's purpose. It also sets scope ('back on sale') and prerequisites ('event_id + tier_id'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_ticket_tier.

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 clearly states the required inputs and role ('you must be a host'), indicating when use is appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, the context with sibling tool list (especially archive_ticket_tier) implicitly guides selection.

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