redmine_unarchive_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool honors 'REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY', which is a behavioral flag that may prevent mutation in read-only mode. However, it does not mention other traits like required permissions, reversibility, or effects on child resources, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise (two lines plus args) with no unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by parameter details and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple mutation tool, the description covers version requirements and a behavioral constraint. However, it omits the output format (though an output schema exists) and error conditions (e.g., what if project is not archived). Overall, it is mostly complete but could include a note on failure scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by stating that project_id can be a 'numeric id or identifier slug', adding meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. This is critical for correct invocation and is well-explained.

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 the action 'Unarchive a previously archived project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'redmine_archive_project' by being the inverse operation. Additionally, it specifies a version requirement (Redmine 5.0+), adding precision.

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 context implies use when reactivating an archived project, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no comparison with siblings (e.g., redmine_archive_project) to clarify alternative usage, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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