restore_projectMove an archived project back to status='draft' so it reappears in the active list. Idempotent on non-archived projects? No — server rejects the transition unless the project is currently archived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | archived project id to restore |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"archived project id to restore"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation provides `idempotentHint: true`, and the description adds nuance by noting it is not idempotent on non-archived projects (server rejects). It also states the status change to 'draft', enhancing transparency without contradiction.
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 concise sentences front-load the action and directly address idempotency. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, idempotency nuance, and error behavior. It is fully contextualized.
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?
The single parameter `id` has 100% schema coverage with description 'archived project id to restore'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool moves an archived project back to status='draft', reappearing in the active list. The verb 'restore' and resource 'project' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling `archive_project`.
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 explicitly explains when to use (when project is archived) and when not to use (non-archived projects are rejected). It also clarifies idempotent behavior, providing clear guidance on usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.