vast_unarchive_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 core state change but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether the zone must currently be archived. This is minimal for a mutating operation.

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?

A single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description, along with the parameter schema, adequately covers the core information a user needs to understand and invoke the operation, though it could note potential errors or response behavior.

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 description covers 100% of the single parameter 'id' as 'Archived VAST zone ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 ('an archived VAST zone') and the resulting state ('back to active status'). It distinguishes this from related sibling tools like vast_archive_zone, vast_list_archived_zones, and vast_delete_archived_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 usage: when you have an archived VAST zone and want to make it active again. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar tools (e.g., unarchive_zone for non-VAST zones, or vast_unarchive_campaign) or mention any prerequisites.

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