Unarchive a thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the outcome (moving to active list) but does not disclose behavior such as prerequisites (thread must exist and be archived), side effects, failure modes, or return values. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 sentence of eight words, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to include critical context without becoming verbose.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough. It covers the primary purpose but omits usage guidance, parameter meaning, and behavioral details, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation and error handling.

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 has one parameter (threadId) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation. Even though the parameter name is self-evident, the description adds no value in explaining its format, source, or constraints.

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 'Bring an archived thread back to the active list' uses a specific verb (bring back) and resource (archived thread), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool archive_thread. It fully states the tool's function with no ambiguity.

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 the tool: when you have an archived thread that should be active again. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling tools make the use case clear. The inverse relationship with archive_thread is evident.

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