restore project

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds a key behavioral distinction (archive restoration vs. Trash recovery) but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or state changes beyond that.

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 two short sentences, focused, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation and distinguishes from trash recovery. However, it does not state what happens if the project is already unarchived or in trash, nor describe the return value, leaving some gaps in operational context.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter. The parameter name and format provide some clarity, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance.

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 action ('Restore') and the resource ('archived Project'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also explicitly distinguishes this from Trash recovery, which adds specificity and aligns with the tool name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to restore an archived project, not for trash recovery. It offers an exclusion but does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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