restore_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the state change (un-archiving and subsequent scanning) but omits critical details such as reversibility, permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the target is not archived), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating tool without annotation support.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff, and conveys the essential information efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one integer parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides only the basic purpose but lacks guidance on return value, edge cases (e.g., target already un-archived), or any operational context. An agent would need to assume behavior, which is risky for a mutating 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It only refers to 'a target' generically without explicitly linking target_id to the target to be un-archived. It adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name and type, failing to meet the compensation burden for low 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 clearly specifies the verb ('Un-archive'), the resource ('a target'), and the effect ('clearing its archived state so it's scanned again'). It is specific and distinguishes this from sibling archive tools like bulk_archive_targets or archive_dead_targets, which perform the opposite action.

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 purpose implicitly defines when to use it: when a target has been archived and needs to be scanned again. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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