vast_unarchive_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the state change (archived to active) but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is minimal.

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 conveying the action and resource without unnecessary words. It is concise 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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate for a simple operation. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral notes, and clarity on return values, so it is not fully 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 schema already fully documents the sole parameter 'id' with the description 'Archived VAST channel ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and clearly identifies the resource ('VAST channel') and the target state ('active status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vast_archive_channel' and the non-VAST 'unarchive_channel' by explicitly naming 'VAST channel'.

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 usage (if you have an archived VAST channel and want to restore it, use this tool) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention related tools like 'vast_list_archived_channels' or note when not to use it.

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