unarchive_claude_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the transcript is unchanged, meaning only the catalog listing is affected. It also clarifies the operation is local to the MCP archive. This adds value beyond basic functionality.

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?

Two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence adds essential non-destructive context. No wasted words.

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 low-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core function and one crucial behavior (transcript unchanged). It omits return values or edge cases (e.g., what if session not archived), but these are not critical for this simple operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention sessionId or cwd at all. However, the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory (sessionId identifies the session), but since there is zero parameter documentation and the description adds no meaning, the score is low.

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 ('Remove from the archive catalog') and clearly identifies the resource (Claude conversation/session). It states the effect ('appears in active listings again'), which distinguishes it from its sibling archive_claude_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 it: when a previously archived conversation should be active again. It clearly conveys the context and outcome, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool name 'archive_claude_session' provides natural contrast.

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