restore_project

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavior beyond that: filing a 'restored' entry with the reason, resuming tasks, and the token restriction. No contradiction with annotations found.

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, dense paragraphs. The primary action and effect are in the first sentence, with a token restriction and an error condition in the second. No filler or redundancy; every line 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?

For a tool with two required params, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, a permission restriction, and a common error. It does not describe return values, but the output schema exists. Minor gap: it doesn't address what happens if a project is already restored, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so both 'key' and 'reason' are already documented with examples and error handling. The description mentions the reason is filed in the entry, but that is also in the schema's reason description. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Brings back') and resource ('an archived project'), and describes observable effects (files a 'restored' entry, tasks resume). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like archive_project without requiring the agent to infer the purpose.

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?

It gives explicit conditions: only a 'main' token can restore, and non-archived projects are refused with a specific error. It does not name alternatives directly, but the inverse relationship with archive_project is clear from context. The token restriction and error case provide practical guidance for when the tool applies.

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