todoist_section_unarchive

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, what happens if already unarchived), prerequisites, or error states. It only mentions restoring tasks, which is expected.

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 concise sentence that includes the action, resource, and effect. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (unarchive a section), the description covers the main purpose. However, it omits edge cases like behavior when both parameters are provided, or what happens if no parameters are given (all required are empty). No output schema makes return value unclear.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds clarifying detail for 'section_name' (partial match, case-insensitive), which goes beyond the schema. This extra info helps resolve ambiguity.

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 ('a previously archived section'), and mentions the effect of restoring tasks. It directly contrasts with the sibling tool 'todoist_section_archive'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or prerequisites like the section must be archived). The description simply states what it does without context.

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