aiworkhub_dashboard_task_restore

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it labels this a USER WRITE, names the gating requirement (confirm=True), and enumerates side effects — clearing the archived overlay, writing an audit event, invalidating storage telemetry. Those are exactly the non-obvious consequences an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, routing/alternative second, side effects last. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter write tool, the description covers trigger, alternative, prerequisite, and downstream effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 task_id, confirm, and reason are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the confirm=True requirement and adds no format, identifier, or defaulting details beyond it; 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 and resource ('restore one archived task card in the canonical task store') plus the resulting state ('back to its prior status'). It is unmistakable against sibling aiworkhub_dashboard_task_quarantine_restore and the archive counterpart, which are named explicitly.

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 the positive trigger (unarchive a task archived via aiworkhub_dashboard_task_archive) and the explicit alternative with its distinguishing condition (use quarantine_restore if the task is already in a task-retention quarantine batch). Nothing is left to inference about when not to call it.

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