sp_restore_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Restore' conveys an operation, but the description does not disclose success/failure behavior, return values, idempotency, permissions, or side effects such as whether restored tasks retain their tags, projects, or timing data.

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?

One sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, and no filler. It is concise without becoming a tautology.

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 single-parameter tool this is near-sufficient, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets no information about return values, error conditions, state transitions, or requirements. A little more behavioral context would make it fully self-contained.

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 already documents the only parameter, id, with 100% coverage and describes it as 'Task id'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Restore'), a specific resource ('Super Productivity task'), and a scope condition ('previously archived'). This clearly identifies the tool as the inverse of sp_archive_task and distinguishes it from the other task-related sibling tools.

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 implies the usage context: it should be used when an archived task needs to be brought back. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclude other states, or name sp_archive_task as the inverse operation, so the guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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