unarchive_document

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

The description aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, not destructive) and adds details like making content visible in collections again, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 begins with a clear main sentence, followed by bullet points and structured Args/Returns. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the bullet points add some verbosity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description adequately covers behavior and context. It explains the effect on visibility without missing crucial details.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description's Args section provides only a basic 'The document ID to unarchive', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. For one required parameter, this is acceptable but not enriching.

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 ('restores a previously archived document to active status') and the resource ('document'), with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_document' by focusing on the reverse 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?

The description provides explicit use cases ('Use this tool when you need to: restore archived documents...') and covers common scenarios. It does not list when not to use or compare directly with siblings like 'restore_document', but the context is clear enough.

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