unarchive_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core state change (archived → active) but adds no detail about prerequisites, side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The statement is accurate and gives a basic understanding, but lacks the richer behavioral context expected in the absence of annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundant details or 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?

For a simple state-transition tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could be more thorough by noting that the channel must already be archived or mentioning the expected response, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward operation given the simplicity of the tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'id' described as 'Archived channel ID'. The description does not add further parameter nuance beyond this, but it does align with the schema by reinforcing that the channel is archived. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('archived channel') with an explicit outcome ('back to active status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_channel, delete_archived_channel, or list_archived_channels.

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 implicitly communicates when to use it: for channels that are archived and need to become active again. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of the sibling tools (archive_channel, delete_archived_channel) makes the appropriate usage clear without ambiguity.

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