common-restore-archive-item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds the useful fact that items go back to the original database, but omits whether the archive entry is consumed, whether existing items are overwritten, or any permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the plural 'items' is mildly ambiguous given the singular itemId parameter.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side effects beyond readOnly/destructive, the description leaves gaps: what happens to the archive copy, whether the caller must supply archive plus database plus itemId together, and what the result is. Adequate but incomplete.

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 itemId, archive, database, and identity are already documented in the schema. The description only says 'specified archive' and 'original database', adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: restores archived items back to the original database from a named archive. An agent can understand the core operation, but the description doesn't distinguish it explicitly from adjacent siblings such as common-remove-archive-item or common-get-archive-item.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus common-get-archive-item, common-remove-archive-item, or common-new-item-clone, and no mention of prerequisites such as the item first being in the archive. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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