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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the Temp is reactivated and its URL remains unchanged. It does not detail authorization requirements or broader side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraint. Every word contributes either to purpose, timing, or a critical behavioral guarantee.

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 tool with only two parameters, no nested objects, and supporting annotations, the description covers the essential scenario: restoring an expired Temp within the grace period without altering its URL. It does not specify the response shape, but no output schema exists and the operation's outcome is clear enough for a simple restore action.

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 temp_id and update_token already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Reactivate'), names the target resource ('an expired Temp'), and constrains the operation ('during its restore grace period'). It also states what the tool does not do ('without changing its URL'), which clearly differentiates it from update_temp and publish_temp.

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 condition under which the tool applies: an expired Temp within its restore grace period. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection.

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