unarchive_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The description only says 'Unarchive a card' and 'restore a previously archived card,' which is purely the action itself. It does not reveal whether unarchiving is reversible, if special permissions are required, or what happens if the card is already unarchived. For a mutating operation, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uninformed about potential side effects.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, while the second adds a brief usage note. There is no filler or unnecessary detail; every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 tool is simple, with three parameters fully described in the schema and a clear action statement. The description adequately tells the agent what the tool does and when to use it. It does not explicitly mention the response format or return value, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, this is not a critical gap. The description is complete enough for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters, with clear descriptions for 'cardId', 'fields', and 'detailLevel'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific insight, but since the schema already fully documents each parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not repeat or oversimplify the schema information, which would be redundant.

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') and the resource ('a card'), with an added clarification ('restore a previously archived card') that reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'archive_card' (the inverse operation) and 'unarchive_list' (different resource) by explicitly naming 'card'.

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 description provides a direct usage instruction: 'Use this tool to restore a previously archived card.' This gives clear context on when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly mention what not to use it for or suggest alternatives. The absence of exclusions or alternative tool names is a minor gap, but the context is nevertheless unambiguous.

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