Unarchive a session

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

Annotations already cover that this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that the session reappears in the default list, but it does not mention idempotency or any preconditions beyond being archived. This is adequate given the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states both the action and the effect with zero extraneous words. It is compact and immediately understandable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit error or precondition details, but none are essential for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore'), names the resource ('archived Jules session'), and states the observable outcome ('reappears in the default session list'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jules_archive_session and jules_get_session.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a session is archived and should be brought back. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the conditional 'archived session' and the outcome make the usage context clear.

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