Restore archived file

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds critical context: confirm=true is required, the operation incurs retrieval cost, may take minutes to hours, and RBAC denials are scope errors rather than tool failures. It also clarifies this is Glacier un-archiving, not file recovery. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Each sentence earns its place: action, prerequisite, clarification/cost/time, and confirmation/auth behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title or schema.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, cost, latency, auth behavior, and the mutating nature requiring confirmation. The only gap is that with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., job status or async tracking), which would be useful for an operation that takes minutes to hours. Overall, it is quite complete for selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the bucketName prerequisite and the confirm=true gate, reinforcing critical parameters beyond their schema descriptions. It does not redundantly restate each parameter, making it useful emphasis rather than repetition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Begin restoring an archived (S3 Glacier) object so it can be downloaded.' It further distinguishes itself with 'NOT recovery of a deleted file,' clearly separating it from deletion/recovery tools. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like download_file or delete_files.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: to restore an archived object for download. Provides exclusions ('NOT recovery of a deleted file'), states required prerequisites (bucketName, confirm=true), and warns of cost/time implications. This gives clear decision-making guidance beyond simply naming the action.

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