restore_group

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the group is 'previously archived' and will be returned to the 'active list,' which gives context on the state transition. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the group is already active or not found. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Restore') and the object ('previously archived group') before the outcome. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple mutation tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the core function and state change. However, it does not mention preconditions (e.g., the group must be archived), potential failure modes (e.g., invalid group_id), or what the response will look like. Given the absence of an output schema and the minimal annotations, a slightly richer description would improve completeness, so a 3 is justified.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore'), a specific resource ('previously archived group'), and a clear outcome ('back to the active list'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_group, delete_group, or update_group, as it explicitly targets archived groups. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a group is archived and needs reactivation) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools like list_groups or create_group as alternatives, nor does it mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if the group is not archived). Context is clear but not exhaustive, so it earns a mid-range score.

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