unarchive_publisher

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 state change but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or requires special permissions. It also does not mention side effects or error conditions, which is a gap for a mutating 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action and the target entity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description and schema fully cover the essential information for this simple tool: what it does and the parameter it requires. It lacks explicit mention of return values or preconditions, but given the simplicity and the schema description, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter 'id' has a schema description 'Archived publisher ID', which provides clear meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Restore' and identifies the resource ('an archived publisher') and the outcome ('back to active status'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like archive_publisher, get_archived_publisher, and delete_publisher.

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 clear context: it is used to change an archived publisher to active status. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives, though the intended usage is clearly implied by the action and sibling naming conventions.

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