restore_tasks

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without clarifying side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites current tasks, whether it requires permissions, or if it supports selective restoration). The lack of detail forces the agent to guess.

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?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence with no filler. However, it is minimal to the point of being uninformative for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. While concise, it sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain restoration semantics, error conditions, return values, or relevant constraints. The tool has 3 parameters but the description gives no context on how they affect behavior.

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% with individual parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., timestamp format, optional filters). It does not explain how parameters interact or provide usage tips, adding zero value.

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 'Restore tasks from archive' clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (tasks from archive). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_tasks and archive_completed_tasks, which perform the opposite operation. However, it could be more specific about what restoration entails (e.g., moving to active state).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an existing archive timestamp, or when not to use it (e.g., if tasks are already active). With siblings like archive_tasks, explicit differentiation is missing.

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