twining_unarchive

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

With no annotations, the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It details exactly what happens per status (provisional→ratification queue, superseded→stays retired, previously-active→authoritative). It discloses the pre-2.7 assumption (assumed_active) and the side effect on assemble/why exclusion. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that is information-dense yet concise. It front-loads the main purpose, then details status-specific behaviors and caveats. No redundant sentences; every clause carries necessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (varying behaviors by archived_from, pre-2.7 edge cases, interaction with assemble/why), the description covers all critical aspects: restoration nuances, assumption handling, reporting (assumed_active, warning post), and exclusion counts. It even flags a follow-up action (twining_reconsider) when needed. No output schema exists, but the description hints at response contents (assumed_active). This is thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both ids and reason. The description adds context about how ids map to behavior (e.g., only archived ones restored) and how reason is recorded, but these are mostly behavioral details rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds some value beyond schema but doesn't radically enhance parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb+object: 'Restore archived decisions' and explicitly positions it as 'the undo for twining_archive_stale'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like twining_archive and twining_archive_stale. The follow-up details about status restoration make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (restore archived decisions) and nuances: only status='archived' are restored, others reported back untouched. It also directs users to twining_reconsider for pre-2.7 cases, giving an alternative tool. This provides clear context and exclusions.

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