unarchive_feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorld=false, so the mutation profile is carried elsewhere. The description adds a genuine non-schema fact — the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement — and clarifies the effect is reappearance in default listings, but it says nothing about the destructiveHint=true implication, error behavior for a non-archived id, or whether state is fully reversible.

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, verb-first, with the prerequisite placed up front rather than buried. The 'Needs Kiln Pro.' fragment is terse and unambiguous, though it sits as a separate line that reads more like a warning banner than guidance.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the tier gate. What's missing is minor: outcome when the feature isn't archived and whether listings refresh immediately.

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% for the single feature_id parameter, and the schema itself already explains that every version of the feature is unflagged. The description adds no additional meaning about the id format, lookup scope, or failure cases, so the parameter baseline of 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 (Restore) and resource (previously-archived mechanical feature) plus the effect (back to default listings), and the word 'mechanical feature' implicitly separates it from the sibling unarchive_design. It never explicitly names archive_feature as the inverse operation, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' gives one real prerequisite, which at least tells an agent when the tool is unusable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over archive_feature/delete_feature/rollback_feature, nor any note about what to do if the feature was never archived.

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