unarchive_configuration

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the change makes the configuration visible to all users and that PSA/RMM-synced records may be reverted by the next sync. The HIGH-IMPACT warning and confirmation requirement add real operational context that readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the impact warning, then the effect, then the sync caveat and confirmation instruction. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the mutation's effect, its blast radius, and the sync hazard. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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 single parameter has full schema description coverage ('The configuration ID to unarchive'), so the schema fully documents it and the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restores a previously archived IT Glue configuration') plus the observable effect ('appears in normal views again'). This cleanly distinguishes it from its sibling archive_configuration.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: tidy up the source system (Autotask/Datto RMM) before invoking for synced configs, and confirm with the user first. No alternative tool is named, but the when/when-not context is unusually strong for a one-param tool.

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