unarchive-documentRestore a previously archived document. The document becomes active again and counts toward the workspace's tracked-documents quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | The public id of the document to unarchive. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations: document becomes active again and counts toward quota. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so description adds value without contradiction.
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 sentences; the first states purpose, the second adds behavioral context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with essential information.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect on the document and quota. Could mention error cases or idempotency implication, but not necessary.
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 covers the single parameter with full description. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?
Description clearly states 'Restore a previously archived document' using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'archive-document' and other document operations.
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?
Implied usage is to unarchive a document, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided. Alternatives are not mentioned, though the purpose is clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (document management, PDF manipulation, automation, analytics, etc.) with clear boundaries, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tool names follow a strict lowercase-with-hyphens pattern and use consistent verb-noun phrasing (e.g., 'create-document', 'list-documents', 'add-pdf-security'), ensuring predictability.
At 45 tools, the server far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. While the coverage is comprehensive, the high number may overwhelm agents and suggests insufficient consolidation.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of documents and PDFs—creation, retrieval, update, deletion, archiving, security, OCR, splitting, merging, automation, analytics, and more—with no obvious gaps.