unretire_agent

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that earlier messages are unchanged, that the return is {agent_name, retired:false}, that the call refreshes activity time on every revival, and that an unknown name fails with NOT_FOUND. It does not mention permission or auth requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return shape, idempotent-like behavior, and the auto-revival alternative. Every sentence carries information, though the enumeration of auto-revival triggers makes it slightly denser than necessary.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return object and the failure mode, and it resolves the sibling ambiguity against retire_agent and list_agents. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the NOT_FOUND behavior for an unknown agent_name, but says nothing about project_key and adds no syntax or format detail.

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+resource ('bring a retired agent back into list_agents') plus the resulting effect ('can receive messages again'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling retire_agent. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly identifies the alternative path: registering, sending, reading mail, or reserving files revives the caller automatically, so this tool is for reviving ANOTHER agent. It also states the already-active case succeeds, removing ambiguity about whether to guard the call.

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