Unarchive Jules Session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and result but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, error behavior (e.g., if the session is not archived), or any permissions/security implications.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description clarifies the primary purpose and result. However, it omits edge-case behavior and fails to provide any safety or side-effect context, which is a gap given the total lack of annotations.

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 parameter sessionId is fully described in the schema ('Session ID to unarchive'), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Restore' and clearly identifies the resource ('previously archived Jules session') and the outcome ('appears in the default session list again'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jules_archive_session and jules_delete_session.

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 the tool is for reversing an archive operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not comparative.

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