research_unarchive

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the observable effect is the study reappearing in the default list — but omits idempotency, error behavior when the study is not archived, and any permission requirements.

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?

One compact sentence with the effect front-loaded after the verb; nothing redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but as a structure it is clean and wasting no words.

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 simple single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and the annotations cover safety, so the core is adequate. It still leaves the identifier semantics and the error/precondition behavior unaddressed, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want closed.

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 single required parameter study_id has 0% schema description coverage and a pattern but no explanation, and the description never mentions it. For a 1-param tool with no schema documentation, the description should at least clarify what identifier is expected (a research/study ID, format r_xxxxxxxx), which it entirely omits.

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 (取消归档 / unarchive) and resource (研究 / research), and the inverse relationship to the sibling research_archive is apparent from the name pairing. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names its counterpart explicitly to help the agent choose between archive/unarchive.

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 clause '让研究重新出现在默认列表' implies the use case (restoring a hidden study to the default listing), which implicitly tells the agent when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the prerequisite state (item must currently be archived), and no comparison against siblings like research_restore or research_undelete.

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