unarchive_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful outcome context: the project is restored to active and becomes visible in the project overview again. It does not describe permissions or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are largely redundant: 'Unarchive a project' is immediately repeated as 'Unarchive a project using its unique identifier.' The third sentence adds new outcome information, so the structure is usable but not maximally efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the state change but omits prerequisites, permissions, and path/projectId specifics. It is minimally complete but leaves clear gaps around invocation details.

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% and the input is a nested path object containing projectId. The description only says 'using its unique identifier,' which restates the obvious identifier role without adding format, path structure, or type details. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Unarchive a project') and adds the effect ('restored to an active state and become visible in the project overview again'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as archive_project, get_project, and put_project.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives to compare against. The intended usage is implied by 'Unarchive a project,' but the description does not say when an agent should choose this over archive_project or other project tools.

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