restore_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission requirements, whether restoration is reversible, or what happens to concurrent modification attempts.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. Its terseness is a content problem, not a structural one, so it scores well here despite being thin overall.

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 output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and an opaque required expected_version argument, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It should at minimum explain the version parameter and the precondition that the task be archived.

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% and there are 2 required parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It says nothing about task_id, and critically leaves expected_version (clearly an optimistic-concurrency token) completely unexplained, which is the single most important parameter an agent could mis-supply.

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 names a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('task') and narrows scope to archived tasks, which distinguishes it from the generic create/update siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with archive_task (its inverse) or explain what restore does to task state, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archive_task or update_task, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., the task must currently be archived). The only hint of context is the word 'archived', which is implied rather than stated as a condition.

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