unarchive_document

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

The description goes beyond annotations by warning about HIGH-IMPACT consequences (makes the document visible to all users) and requiring confirmation before invoking. While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds the specific visibility impact and the confirmation requirement, which is meaningful value beyond the structured metadata.

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 efficiently written in two sentences with front-loaded warning, but it omits useful context such as error behavior or side effects (e.g., whether sections and contents are also restored). Minor redundancy exists since the title and annotation already convey reversibility.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and a good title annotation, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't cover what happens to associated sections/content, whether there's a restore delay, or potential errors. Given destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, slightly more behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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 100% schema coverage, the single parameter (document_id) is fully documented in the schema as 'The document ID to unarchive'. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles it completely.

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 verb (restores/unarchives), the resource (IT Glue document), and the effect (appears in normal views, visible to all users). This distinguishes it well from the sibling archive_document and read-oriented tools like get_document or search_documents.

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 explains the high-impact reversible nature and instructs confirming with the user, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or how it differs from archive_document beyond the obvious inverse relationship. The confirmation requirement is a useful usage guideline.

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