unarchive_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by emphasizing 'HIGH-IMPACT' and explaining that unarchiving 'makes the document visible to all users,' which is not fully captured by the annotations. It also includes a safety instruction for user confirmation.

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: two short sentences. The warning is front-loaded with '⚠ HIGH-IMPACT,' followed by a clear purpose and a directional usage note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers purpose, impact, and a prerequisite (user confirmation), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Additional return-value details are unnecessary given the absence of an output schema.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'document_id' with a clear description. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema description coverage.

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 IT Glue document' with a specific effect ('appears in normal views again'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_document by describing the inverse operation, and notes the visibility impact on all users.

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 guidance by warning 'HIGH-IMPACT' and instructing to 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' It implies the appropriate context (when a document is archived and needs to be restored) but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions; sibling tools make the context clear.

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