restore_archived

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that tasks are restored to the main view and that omitting task_id restores all, but it omits important mutation details such as required permissions, reversibility, potential conflicts with existing tasks in the main view, or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated immediately after, making the description easy to scan.

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 restore tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers the core action and the optional bulk mode. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to disclose behavioral context such as side effects or safety implications of restoring all tasks.

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 the schema already documents the single optional task_id parameter. The description restates the same meaning (provide task_id to restore one, omit to restore all) without adding syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high 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 states a specific verb and resource: restore archived tasks back to the main view. It distinguishes the tool's action from siblings like archive_done or delete_task, but does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains parameter behavior (restore one task vs all tasks) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_task or get_task. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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