project_restore_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing project, closing the current project, or creating a new project entry). The description only states the basic operation, leaving the agent uninformed about potential destructive or contextual behaviors.

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, focused sentence: 'Restore a project from a .dra archive file.' It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words or redundant details. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 is adequate but minimal. It lacks behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., must a project be closed?), effects on the current project state, or what happens after restoration. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return-value omissions, but the description still leaves gaps.

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 a single parameter 'file_path' already described as 'Absolute path to the .dra archive file.' The description's mention of '.dra archive file' partially aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), the resource ('a project'), and the source ('a .dra archive file'). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like project_open or project_import. The verb+resource construction leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the inverse of project_archive, nor does it specify conditions like 'when you have a backup archive' or 'when a project is missing.' The description simply states the action without contextual direction.

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