unarchive_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state transition from archived to active, but does not mention idempotency, failure conditions, or side effects on zone settings or assignments. This is minimally adequate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.

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-change tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It could mention error handling or related tools but is substantially complete.

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 fully describes the single parameter id as 'Archived zone ID' (100% coverage). The description adds 'standard zone' context but no additional format or source guidance, so it meets the baseline for covered schemas.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('archived standard zone') with an outcome ('back to active status'). The qualifier 'standard zone' distinguishes it from sibling tools like vast_unarchive_zone and unarchive_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 (reactivating an archived standard zone) but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as vast_unarchive_zone or unarchive_email_zone. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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