unarchive_channel

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

Description discloses idempotency in the already-active case, which adds nuance to the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It clarifies that the tool can be safely reapplied. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words. All information is front-loaded and relevant.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and idempotency for this simple operation. It could mention permissions or side effects, but overall sufficient.

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 description clarifies that the single 'channel' parameter is a name or ID, which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'a string that will be trimmed'. This helps the agent understand what values to provide.

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 clearly states the action 'Unarchive' and the resource 'Huly channel', and specifies it can be done by name or ID. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'archive_channel' which performs the opposite operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only notes idempotency when already active, but doesn't compare to related tools like create_channel or join_channel.

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