unarchive_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a mutation (unarchiving) but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., notifications), error conditions, or what 'active view' entails. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal sibling context, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent under-informed about critical aspects like success criteria or 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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'issue_id' by specifying it's for 'the issue to unarchive', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's generic title 'Issue Id'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format 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 clearly states the action ('Unarchive') and resource ('security issue') with the goal 'to restore it to active view'. It distinguishes from 'archive_issue' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation beyond the inherent contrast.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue' or 'archive_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., issue must be archived). It only states the basic purpose without context for decision-making.

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