unarchive_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it clearly states the exact mutation: `set closed to false`. It does not cover errors, idempotency, or permissions, but for a one-field mutation this is a honest and useful description.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a precise parenthetical clarification. It contains no filler and every part contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description provides enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could add a note about expected card state or behavior if the card is already unarchived, but it remains largely complete for this simple operation.

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%, and the schema already documents `cardId` as a 24-character string. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the operation itself, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the operation (unarchive) on a specific resource (Trello card), and the parenthetical `set closed to false` makes the exact effect unambiguous. It is the obvious inverse of the sibling `archive_card`, so it is well distinguished.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Désarchive' — an agent should use it when restoring a card from the archive — but the description does not explicitly state the precondition (card is closed/archived) or contrast it with related tools such as `archive_card` or `bulk_archive_cards`.

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