Unarchive cipher put

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about effects beyond that token: whether the cipher must currently be archived, whether the call is idempotent, or what error/return behavior to expect.

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?

Three words, fully front-loaded with zero waste, so it is concise. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with four undocumented parameters, which is not the same as good structure.

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?

A mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only generic annotations. The description does not give an agent enough to call it confidently—particularly no indication of what the non-obvious form/params/json_body parameters are for.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description fails to compensate. "One cipher" hints that a cipher identifier is required, but cipher_id is untyped and form, params, and json_body are completely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (unarchive) and resource (one cipher), and the qualifier "one" implicitly separates it from the bulk "selected" siblings. However, it names no alternative and gives no context about the archive feature family it belongs to.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. The only hint is the word "one," which an agent must infer means single-cipher versus multi-cipher operations.

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