restore_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful context by listing skipped cases: already-restored, missing, altered, or occupied entries. However, it omits other behavioral details such as return value, failure handling, permissions, and whether the archive entry is removed after a successful restore.

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 states the primary operation first and then lists the exception cases compactly. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse: it does not explain what 'only' or 'dry_run' do, what the default 'latest' batch means, or what the result of the operation looks like. The skip behavior is a good start, but important call-time context 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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for the three parameters: only, dry_run, and batch_id. It only uses the word 'batch' generically, which does not clarify defaults or semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Restore an archived batch back to its original paths.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like archive_notes and list_archives by describing the reverse operation, so an agent can identify when restore_archive is applicable.

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 use case is implied: call this when an archived batch needs to be returned to its original paths. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, name alternatives among the sibling tools, or mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing archive.

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