unarchive_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral outcome ('restores to active status') and implies a mutation (since it changes document state), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions. It adds basic context but misses operational specifics like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, usage guidelines in bullet points, and parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. The formatting enhances readability without unnecessary 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 moderate complexity (single parameter mutation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns, but could improve by detailing error cases or behavioral nuances. It adequately supports agent invocation for this straightforward 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents the single parameter ('document_id: The document ID to unarchive'), adding clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal title. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action ('Restores') and resource ('a previously archived document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'archive_document' (opposite action) and 'restore_document' (likely for trash recovery). It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 usage scenarios in a bulleted list (e.g., 'Restore archived documents to active use', 'Make archived content visible in collections again'), clearly indicating when to use this tool. It differentiates from alternatives by focusing on archived documents rather than trash or active documents.

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