unarchive_project

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation but omits side effects (e.g., impact on tasks, collaborators, or permissions), required authentication, or any non-obvious consequences of restoring a project.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an Args block. It front-loades the core purpose and includes only essential information without waste.

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 mutation with one parameter and an output schema (indicated by context), the description is nearly complete. It covers the action and parameter, though it could mention the return value or confirmation behavior for 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?

The description provides a clear, human-readable explanation for the single parameter 'project_id' ('The project_id to restore.'), which adds value beyond the schema's minimal type definition. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates adequately.

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 action 'Restore an archived project to active status,' using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'archive_project' by indicating the opposite operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'archive_project' or 'get_project_status.' The agent receives no context about prerequisites (e.g., project must be archived) or conditions where this tool is appropriate.

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