unsuspend_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (moving cards to active review queues) but omits any mention of permissions required, reversibility, validation of inputs, or what happens if cards are not suspended. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided) but adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action and the primary input modes. No filler, no repetition, and the most essential information (what it does) comes first.

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?

While an output schema exists and the tool's behavior is relatively simple, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain how multiple selection criteria interact, what output_file is for, or any prerequisites (e.g., cards must currently be suspended). The agent would need to infer parameter usage from the schema alone, which lacks descriptions. The description is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify all parameters. It explicitly mentions card_ids, note_ids, query, and input_file, but does not describe the output_file parameter at all. It also leaves query syntax undefined and does not explain relationships or exclusivity between parameters. This partial coverage only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Unsuspend') and resource ('cards'), and specifies the action's result ('back into active review queues'). It also enumerates four distinct ways to select cards (by IDs, query, file), which distinguishes it from the sibling suspend_cards and makes its 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?

The description implies its use (to reverse suspension) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions multiple selection methods but gives no guidance on precedence, combination, or when a query vs. IDs is preferable. There are no exclusions or 'use instead' references to siblings like suspend_cards.

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