Restore an organization

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds content beyond that: the mandatory two-step confirmation protocol and the permission/role gate, both of which materially change how an agent should sequence the call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the gating workflow, then permissions; no filler sentences. The middle sentence is long and packs several steps into one clause chain, but every element is load-bearing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers purpose, prerequisite flow, and authorization. The only gap is the return value/outcome of a successful restore, which is minor given the operation's simplicity.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It does so for confirmationToken by explaining it is obtained from preview_operation, and requestId is self-documented in the schema, but organizationId has no description anywhere. A strong partial compensation, not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bring an archived organization back to active'), clearly the inverse of the sibling archive_organization. An agent can distinguish it from restore_project and update_organization without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation with tool 'restore_organization' and these arguments, show the plan, and only proceed after explicit user agreement. It also names the required permission (organization:manage) and role (owner), which is exactly the when-can-I-use-this information an agent needs.

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