Restore project

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that — it writes a `restored` journal entry carrying the reason and resumes task state where archiving left off, plus the refusal code for non-archived projects. It does not discuss idempotency or permissions, but the state-transition detail is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the effect and the refusal condition. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the state transition and the error case. Only minor gaps remain — no explicit mention of the `archive_project` alternative or permission requirements.

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 100%, so both `key` and `reason` are fully documented in the schema itself, including the refusal codes. The description's mention of the reason being 'carried in its case' duplicates the schema's statement that it is filed in the `restored` entry, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Brings an archived project back') and describes the concrete effects: filing a `restored` entry and resuming tasks. It doesn't explicitly name `archive_project` as the counterpart, but the archived-project framing makes the inverse relationship inferable.

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?

Gives a clear precondition and the failure mode for violating it ('A project that is not archived is refused with `project_not_archived`'), which effectively tells the agent when not to call it. It stops short of explicitly routing to the sibling `archive_project` for the opposite operation.

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