unarchive_wallets

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the tool performs an unarchive operation (state change) and describes input/output form, but it does not mention required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or any constraints (e.g., wallets must be archived first). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences that convey the essential behavior. There is no wasted text, but the description could be slightly more informative without bloat, e.g., mentioning it is the inverse of archive_wallets.

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 description covers the basic input/output but lacks details on behavioral aspects such as idempotency, error handling, or output schema specifics (though output schema exists but is not provided). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% coverage for the top-level parameter but includes a description for the 'wallet' sub-field ('Name of the wallet to unarchive'). The description clarifies that the tool expects 'a list of wallet names' and returns a specific response type, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail the structure of the request container or potential constraints.

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 states 'Unarchive wallets' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It further specifies that it expects a list of wallet names and returns a response, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like archive_wallets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from unarchive_wallet_group, keeping it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unarchive_wallet_group or archive_wallets. There are no prerequisites, context conditions, or usage patterns provided.

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