restore_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the restore overwrites an existing configuration of the same name, whether it clears the archived flag, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation, that is a real gap even with a lower bar.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It still omits the practical effect of restoring — whether a duplicate is created vs. reverted in place, and any permission requirement — which an agent would want before calling a mutating endpoint.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Configuration UUID.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier, which is the expected baseline of 3 under 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 names a specific verb (Restore) and resource (configuration) plus the qualifying state (archived), which is enough for an agent to separate it from delete_configuration, update_configuration and the restore_<other-resource> siblings. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 word 'archived' implies a precondition — the configuration must currently be archived — which is weak but real usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over update_configuration or set_configuration, no note about prerequisites such as permissions, and no exclusions.

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