restore_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation affects the wiki and all pages, may republish pages to the internet, that archived wikis are invisible elsewhere, that non-archived/nonexistent/wrong-workspace Uuids are indistinguishable, and that there is intentionally no archive tool. These behaviors are not in the schema or annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: purpose, parameter source, 404 ambiguity, and a note about missing archive functionality. The text is front-loaded with the core action, and the additional details are concise and relevant, not padded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the source of the parameter, expected effects, error semantics, and a limitation. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema only provides the type/format of wiki_uuid, but the description adds critical semantic meaning: it explains that the uuid must be from list_wikis with archived: true and that this is the only context where such a uuid is visible. This compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Undo an archive: brings a wiki, and every page under it, back into list_wikis and back onto the internet if any of its pages were published.' This clearly states the action, the target, and the effect, and it differentiates the tool from siblings like archive_ticket or list_wikis.

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?

It explicitly tells the user where to obtain the required parameter: 'wiki_uuid comes from list_wikis with archived: true — that is the only place one is visible at all.' It also provides an exclusion by noting that a wiki not archived, permission-denied, or nonexistent all return 404. This is clear when-to-use guidance with an alternative (list_wikis) and a caution.

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