person_restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'fields intact' adds useful context that field values are preserved rather than reset, but nothing is said about error behavior for already-active cards or permission 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, target state, and preservation guarantee — no filler.

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, non-destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything essential. Minor gaps (idempotency, failure modes) are not strictly needed here.

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 100% with a single, well-documented slug parameter including format and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (reactivate) and resource (archived person card), making it clearly the inverse of person_archive and distinguishable from person_revision_restore (a different kind of restore). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 strongly implied: call this when an archived person card must be brought back. However, it never states preconditions (e.g., card must currently be archived) or disambiguates from person_revision_restore, which also restores person-related state.

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