restore_archived_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: the restore is scheduled asynchronously (one-time), and crucially the archive row is removed after a successful restore. That tells the agent the operation consumes/removes the source archive entry, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with the destructive disclosure front-loaded at the end as a clear flag; nothing is padded. The bolded [Destructive] marker slightly duplicates destructiveHint, but it is a useful reinforcement for a high-risk call.

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 an open-world, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description omits what the caller gets back, how long the scheduled restore takes, and how to verify completion. It covers the destructive consequence well but leaves the follow-up workflow unspecified.

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 only 50%, and the description says nothing about either parameter. The confirmation sentinel is documented in the schema and archive_log_sys_id is largely self-explanatory by name, so the gap is tolerable, but the description adds no meaning about which archive log entry qualifies or what happens on a bad id.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Schedule a one-time standard ServiceNow restore for one archive log entry"), which is unambiguous against the other archive siblings such as list_archive_rules or create_destroy_rule. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with get_archive_restore_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this vs. alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that an archive rule must have moved the record first), and no pointer to get_archive_restore_status for tracking the scheduled job. The agent must infer all of that from the tool name alone.

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