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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full effect set: write access restored, reappearance in list_projects and the switcher, issue search restored to prior state, and the important nuance that a paused project stays paused. It also states the permission model, which is behavioral context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loads the action and its effects in one dense sentence, then adds permission and discovery clauses. Every clause carries information, though the nested parenthetical about pausing and the trailing discovery note make it slightly dense for a single-tool call.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, preserved state, authorization, and how to locate the target. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further exploration.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining the projectKey format via an example. The description adds no further meaning about the key (e.g., whether archived keys are accepted or case-sensitivity), so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Take a project out of the archive') and enumerates the concrete consequences: writable again, back in list_projects and the switcher, issues searchable. This clearly separates it from archive_project and from the sibling unarchive_issues, which the description implicitly contrasts by scoping to a 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?

Gives a concrete precondition for finding the target ('An archived project is found by list_projects with includeArchived') and an authorization rule (lead, parent's lead, or admin). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over archive_project or how to handle failures, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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