unarchive_all_chats_api_v1_chats_unarchive_all_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the title, offering no details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, permissions, state changes). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices clarity by omitting necessary context. It is efficient but not fully informative, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to clarify what 'all chats' means (e.g., user-scoped or system-wide) and does not leverage the output schema to describe return values. The presence of sibling tools like archive_all_chats suggests a need for differentiation, which is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per the baseline rule for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 'Unarchive All Chats' clearly states the action (unarchive) and resource (all chats), distinguishing it from the sibling 'archive_all_chats'. However, it lacks specificity on scope (e.g., user's chats vs all accessible chats), preventing a 5.

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 like archive_all_chats or other chat management tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where unarchiving is appropriate.

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