Restore an archived initiative update to make it active again, ensuring project history remains accessible and up to date.
Restore an archived initiative update
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the initiative update to restore |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the restore action. The description does not add behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as permission requirements or state changes, but does not contradict them either.
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 a single, four-word sentence that is concise and front-loaded. For a simple operation, this is appropriate, though it could include brief context without becoming verbose.
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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of the effect of unarchiving (e.g., reappearance in lists) or prerequisites.
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?
The lone parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'ID of the initiative update to restore', which is clear. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already 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?
The description 'Restore an archived initiative update' clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (initiative update), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'archiveInitiativeUpdate' and other unarchive operations.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or references to sibling tools like 'linear_archiveInitiativeUpdate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.