Restore a task from the 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 explaining side effects, but it only repeats the core action. It does not disclose what state changes 'restore' causes, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the task is not archived.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is somewhat redundant with the title, but it remains appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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, this description gives just enough for a basic invocation, but it omits behavioral context such as the effect on task state and error conditions. With no annotations and no output schema, additional detail about the restore behavior would improve completeness.

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 schema provides only a required string `id` with no description, and the tool description does not explicitly map `id` to the task being restored. However, because there is a single parameter with an unambiguous name, an agent can reasonably infer that `id` refers to the archived task's identifier.

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 states a clear verb ('Restores') and resource ('an archived task'), so an agent can tell this tool reverses archiving and distinguishes it from sp_task_archive, sp_task_delete, and other task tools. It is slightly redundant with the title but still specific enough.

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, whether it is the inverse of sp_task_archive, or whether it only applies to previously archived tasks. The usage context is only implied by the name and one-line description.

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