unarchive_list

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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 short sentences immediately convey the action and use case. There is no wasted content, and the information is front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 conceptually simple, and the schema is clear, but the description omits any details about expected outcomes, prerequisites, or response behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps around behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents listId, fields, and detailLevel. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the load.

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 list') and adds a helpful synonym ('restore a previously archived list'), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like archive_list by the explicit reversal of archiving.

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 phrase 'Use this tool to restore a previously archived list' provides clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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