unarchive

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them by revealing that the default is a dry-run that shows plan and diff, which substantially softens the destructive risk. It also discloses the side effect of rewriting index.md to re-declare okf_version. It does not say what happens on a path collision at the destination.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every clause carries real information about path syntax or dry-run behavior. The parenthetical asides make it a dense run-on that could be split for scanning, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations already present, the description covers the essentials: input formats, prerequisites, and the dry-run default. The remaining gap is destination-collision/overwrite behavior, notable for a destructive mutation but not fatal.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it does: `path` is defined as either `<bundle>/<path>` for a concept or `<bundle>` for a whole bundle, and `apply` is defined by its False behavior (plan plus diff). The True branch is only implied, so it falls short of fully documenting both values.

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?

States a specific verb (unarchive) and resource (archived concept or bundle) plus the two accepted path shapes, so an agent knows exactly what operation is being performed. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling `archive`, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete context for the operating parameters: `apply=False shows the plan and diff`, and states the prerequisite that a concept's bundle must exist and a bundle's index.md must re-declare okf_version. It never explicitly says 'use apply=True to commit', leaving the commit path implied rather than stated.

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