pvsyst_restore_project_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirm gate, but says nothing about whether the restore overwrites existing project/variant state, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what a success response looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and the confirm requirement appended. Efficient, though the category tag adds little and the sentence is arguably too compressed to be self-sufficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three entirely undocumented parameters, the description is under-specified — an agent still has to guess at archive naming and the consequences of the operation.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only `confirm`; it gives no meaning for `project` (name vs. ID) or `archive_name` (format, whether it must match an existing archive entry).

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) and resource (archived project or one archived variant), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `pvsyst_restore_variant` or `pvsyst_restore_project_sources`, so the agent cannot tell which restore entry point to pick.

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 gives the `confirm=true` invocation requirement but never says when this tool should be chosen over `pvsyst_restore_variant`, `pvsyst_restore_component`, or `pvsyst_archive_project`. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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