project_unarchive

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens if the project is already active. However, it does not contradict annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful and there is no extraneous content.

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 (one parameter), the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks details about parameter semantics and usage context. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but overall the description could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema does not describe parameter meaning. The description only indirectly refers to 'project' but does not explain the projectId parameter's format, source, or constraints. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 'Return an archived project' and the resource 'project', and specifies the outcome 'to the default active project list'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like project_archive (the inverse) and project_delete (destructive).

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 usage for unarchiving projects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context from siblings suggests it's the opposite of project_archive, but no explicit guidance.

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