unarchive_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only the basic action and omits where the note is placed after unarchiving, whether authentication or ownership is required, whether the action is reversible, and what edge cases apply (e.g., note not currently archived). It adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.

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 one lean sentence with zero wasted words; every token earns its place. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and object. It loses one point only because the brevity comes at the cost of omitted operational detail, but judged purely as a concise structure, it is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, a compact sentence could still carry substantial operational detail, but this one only restates the action. Missing are path semantics, post-unarchive destination, and any disambiguation from restore_note/archive_note. Even though an output schema exists, the input/behavior side is under-specified enough that an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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%, and the description does not compensate at all. The only parameter, path, is left undefined: does it refer to the archived note's current path, the pre-archive location, or the destination? The description needed to explain path semantics because the schema only declares type: string, and it failed to do so.

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 ('Sort' = remove/take out) and a specific resource (a note from the archive), so the core action is unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from trash-related siblings by specifying 'archive', but does not explicitly name alternatives, leaving restore_note vs unarchive_note contrast to inference.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, sibling restore_note performs a user-facing action very similar to unarchiving ('restore' both from archive and trash), and without explicit context on when the archive-specific unarchive is appropriate, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.

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