unarchive_feature

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it provides almost nothing: it never says whether the feature must be archived first, whether the restore is reversible, who is authorized, or what gets returned. The 'Requires Kiln Pro' line is ambiguous promotional copy, not a clear disclosure of whether this specific call is gated, and the pricing URL is marketing noise rather than behavior.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but three of the four lines are promotional copy about Pro-tier features and an upgrade link that do not help an agent invoke the tool. That is waste, not conciseness.

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 basic operation is inferable from the first sentence, which is enough for a single-parameter mutation with no output schema. However, with zero annotations the description should at minimum clarify the Pro-gating ambiguity and the preconditions for restoring, and it does not.

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 sole required parameter feature_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its expected format or where to obtain it. The one sentence of real content describes the effect on the feature, not the identifier needed to invoke the tool.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: restore an archived mechanical feature to default listings. That is clearly distinct from the sibling archive_feature, though it is not differentiated from close siblings like unarchive_design or unarchive_decoration_preset, whose names alone must do that work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than archive_feature's inverse or the design/preset unarchive variants, nor any stated preconditions such as the feature needing to currently be archived. The only remaining text is an upsell.

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