admin_reactivate_project

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

Discloses the core behavior (flips archived_at to NULL) and notes a version change narrowing its scope. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though could mention if the operation is reversible or has side effects.

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?

Highly concise: three sentences front-loaded with the key action, followed by version context, alternatives, access control, and endpoint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 parameterless mutation tool, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, versioning, alternatives, and endpoint. No output schema needed; context is sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema description already includes detailed context. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool un-archives a project by flipping archived_at back to NULL. It specifies the resource (project) and the action (un-archive), and differentiates from account-level operations, making it distinct from siblings like admin_archive_project.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for project un-archiving) and when not to (for grace-state accounts), providing specific alternatives: `tier_set` or `admin_set_lease_perpetual`. Also specifies platform-admin only requirement.

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