unarchive_contract

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses only the core action (unarchiving/restoring) but omits side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what 'restore' entails (e.g., making the contract active again). This is minimal and leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the parenthetical adds a clear synonym without padding, making it appropriately sized.

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 one-parameter mutation without annotations or output schema, the description plus schema provide a baseline understanding: it unarchives a contract given an archived ID. However, it lacks context about the operation's effects on contract state, return behavior, or its place in the archive/unarchive workflow, leaving some gaps.

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 documents the only parameter 'id' as 'Archived contract ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies for adequate schema-driven semantics.

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 (contract), with a clarifying parenthetical 'restore from archive'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_contract and delete_archived_contract, as it specifies the opposite operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only applies to archived contracts, nor does it reference related operations like list_archived_contracts or archive_contract. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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