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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable specifics beyond those: already-live plans succeed without a write (elaborating idempotency) and a refusal case where the job has another live plan, naming it. This is genuinely useful behavioral context not present in structured data.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by two edge-case behaviors in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description covers the key conflict scenario and idempotent behavior. It lacks an explicit statement of return values or error format, but with no output schema and low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any parameter semantics. interview_plan_id is inferable from its name, but request_id and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained. The description fails to fill the schema gap.

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 'Restore one archived interview plan' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like archive, publish, and modify, with no ambiguity about what operation it performs.

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 the verb 'restore' and the sibling context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not guidance. The behavioral caveats (already-live success, conflict refusal) help with decisions but do not explicitly route away from other tools.

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