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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing the resulting state (scheduled vs running vs paused preserved), the default end date, that the screening form becomes reachable while applications remain closed, and that no emails are sent. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before committing a mutation.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the target state and default front-loaded before the secondary form/email details. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, defaults, and downstream effects thoroughly. It omits any indication of what the call returns or how errors (e.g. non-archived project) are surfaced, which would complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters including the ISO 8601 format and the 30-day default; the description only repeats the default for endAt. It adds no guidance on productId sourcing or date edge cases, so it stays near baseline.

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 and resource ('Restore this ARCHIVED beta project') plus the state transition it performs, which cleanly separates it from archiveBeta, resumeBeta, and pauseBeta in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation 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 word 'ARCHIVED' establishes the precondition for use, and the return-to-scheduling sentence clarifies the outcome versus a plain resume. It does not explicitly name resumeBeta or say what to do if the project is not archived, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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