Restore Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the state effect (re-entering the fulfilment queue) and the failure semantics (404 when not archived, 401 on invalid keys), which is exactly the added context that matters for a mutating call.

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?

Front-loads the action in one sentence, then organizes the remainder into labelled When to use / Parameters / Returns / Errors blocks that are easy to scan. Slightly header-heavy for a one-parameter tool, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, precondition, failure modes, and side effect. The 'Returns' line is mildly redundant with the output schema but not misleading, and nothing an agent needs to call 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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'StarShipIt internal order ID to restore from archive'. The description restates it verbatim rather than adding format or lookup guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 (restore an archived order) and its outcome (returned to the active fulfilment queue). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like starshipit_archive_order, starshipit_update_order, and starshipit_get_order.

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 'When to use' block explicitly names the inverse operation starshipit_archive_order and the condition that selects this tool. The error note ('404 if order not found or not currently archived') further delineates the precondition, leaving little to inference.

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