restore_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action and return value. It does not explicitly mention that the task is unarchived, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if the task is already active, making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure with no redundant information, making every sentence purposeful.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about what 'archive' means, how restore interacts with task states, and what the restored task data contains. It also does not reference sibling tools or edge cases, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, 'task_id: ID of the task to restore' merely restates the parameter name without adding meaningful semantic details like format constraints, examples, or how the ID relates to other task operations.

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 clearly states the action ('Restore') and the target resource ('an archived task'), making it distinct from sibling tools like delete_task or create_task. The scope is explicitly limited to archived tasks, which differentiates it from similar operations like reopen_task.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use restore_task versus alternatives such as reopen_task or how to handle tasks that are not archived. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, side effects, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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