aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it declares this is a write, requires confirm=True, requires the source row to be archived, and enumerates side effects (clears archived_at, writes target_status, records an audit event) plus the return of the updated item. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or what happens when the precondition fails, which is the only remaining gap for an unannotated mutation.

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 write/reversibility nature and the primary 'use this to unarchive' instruction are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the alternative and side effects following. Three sentences, no filler, every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return shape needn't be described), the definition covers purpose, precondition, effects, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in-schema, and the description mostly restates them (confirm=True, target_status assignment). It adds slight value by framing target_status as an 'active non-terminal' status, but no syntax or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (restore/unarchive) and resource (archived NeedFix item) plus the resulting state (active non-terminal lifecycle status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from needfix_archive (the inverse) and needfix_transition (lifecycle advance of already-active rows), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives: use this after aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_archive, use aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_transition for active items. It also states the precondition (row currently in archived status) that gates invocation.

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