knowledge_restore

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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: it names exactly what is mutated ('clears the archive flag and tombstone note') and the downstream effect ('becomes visible to knowledge_recall and knowledge_maintain'). It omits failure behavior (slug not archived / not found) and auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, each adding distinct information (action, mutation detail, downstream visibility). No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter state-flip with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers action, mutation, and effect. It stops short of stating what happens on an unknown or already-active slug, which an agent might need.

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% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description only frames which pages qualify ('previously archived'), adding no syntax, format, or id-vs-slug guidance. 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) and resource (previously archived knowledge page) plus the resulting state (active). An agent can tell this apart from knowledge_archive, knowledge_supersede, or knowledge_purge without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by 'previously archived knowledge page', which tells the agent the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative (e.g. when to prefer restore vs supersede vs re-write). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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