redmine_project_unarchive

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals the HTTP method (PUT) and the state-changing nature of the operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the project is not archived.

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 concise sentence that includes the operation and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant filler.

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, straightforward unarchive operation, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: the action, the HTTP method, and the endpoint. It is slightly light on behavioral context, but the low complexity keeps it from being incomplete.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'id' as 'project id or identifier', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Unarchive project' with the exact endpoint. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool redmine_project_archive beyond the antonym in the name and description.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Unarchive' — an agent can infer it is for restoring an archived project. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the alternative redmine_project_archive for the opposite operation.

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