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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds the underlying HTTP operation (PUT /v1/lists/{list_id}/items/{id}/unarchive), which confirms this is an in-place mutation, but says nothing about idempotency, behavior on a non-archived item, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the endpoint mapping; nothing is wasted. Slight redundancy between the action sentence and the endpoint, but no bloat.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool does. However, with only a single destructiveHint annotation, it omits mutation-specific context an agent would want (state preconditions, side effects), leaving it adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the two path components (list_id, id) via the endpoint but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (restore/unarchive) and resource (a previously archived list entry), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling castle_archive_list_item. The trailing 'so it matches again' phrase is slightly vague but does not obscure the operation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'restore a previously archived list entry' — the agent can infer this is for reversing an archive — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the item must currently be archived), and no named alternative among the siblings.

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