unarchive_wallet_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool unarchives (a mutation) and returns a list of responses, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens if the group is already unarchived.

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 only two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second describes input and output. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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, but given that the output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds some value by stating it expects a list of group names. However, it does not explain the nested structure (UnarchiveWalletGroupRequestContainer) or the exact format of the group name (schema says it's a string). This partially clarifies the input but is not fully comprehensive.

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 tool unarchives wallet groups. It is specific about the action (unarchive) and the resource (wallet groups), distinguishing it from siblings like archive_wallet_group and unarchive_wallets.

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 specifies that the tool expects a list of group names and returns responses, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., undo an archive). The name implies the opposite of archive_wallet_group, but no explicit context is given.

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