unarchive_email_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary effect (restoring to active status) but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., the zone must be archived), potential errors, permission requirements, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. There is no redundant or extraneous wording; every word adds value.

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), so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats, making it only partially complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as 'Archived email zone ID'. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Restore'), the resource ('archived email zone'), and the outcome ('back to active status'). It is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like unarchive_zone by explicitly mentioning 'email zone'.

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 implies the use case (when you need to restore an archived email zone), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The tool name and sibling context somewhat compensate.

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