kaiten_restore_card

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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, open-world, and destructive behavior, so the description carries less burden. It adds the archived-to-live state outcome, which is useful, but omits permission requirements, failure behavior for non-archived cards, and any explanation of why the destructive hint applies to a 'restore' operation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriately sized for a one-parameter operation. The only shortfall is that such brevity leaves no room for precondition or failure context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool the description still lacks precondition/failure behavior and parameter explanation, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the schema does not document card_id, and the description only implicitly ties the operation to the card via 'an archived card.' It adds no format, constraints, or meaning beyond the self-evident parameter name, failing to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Restore') with a specific resource ('an archived card') and states the resulting state ('live condition'), so an agent can distinguish it from archive/delete/update siblings without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse sibling or clarifying where the card is restored to, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'archived card' weakly implies the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., use update_card for non-archived cards). It provides no guidance on what to do if the card is already live or how this relates to kaiten_archive_card.

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