unarchive_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the output type but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or effects on wallet state. The input structure is oversimplified (says 'list of wallet names' but schema shows a nested container).

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action. It earns its place without fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating input/output specifications.

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?

Given no annotations and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain edge cases, required permissions, or the full implications of unarchiving wallets. The output schema exists but isn't leveraged to simplify the description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'Expects a list of wallet names' but the parameter is a nested container with an array of objects, not just a list of strings. This simplification may mislead an AI agent about the exact structure.

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 clearly states the tool unarchives wallets, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_wallets' by the inverse operation, and the input/output expectations are explicitly mentioned.

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 (unarchiving wallets) but does not provide when-not-to-use or differentiate precisely from alternatives like 'archive_wallet_group'. No explicit workflow context is given.

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