unarchive_threadRestore an archived thread (clears archivedAt). It reappears in the default inbox list. Pair with list_inbox filter=archived to find archived threadIds first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | archived thread id to restore |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / threadId / descriptionAdded value: +"archived thread id to restore"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true. Description adds meaning by stating effect on archivedAt field and visibility change, which is useful beyond 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?
Two highly concise sentences with all essential information front-loaded. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage hint, and behavioral effect. Complete.
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 description for 'threadId' as 'archived thread id to restore'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Clearly states the verb 'restore' and resource 'archived thread', with specific effect 'clears archivedAt' and reappearance in inbox. Distinguishes from sibling 'archive_thread' and 'list_inbox'.
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 suggests pairing with 'list_inbox filter=archived' to find thread IDs first, providing clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but sufficient for the simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.