unarchive_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('restore') but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the document's state, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or error conditions. It meets the bare minimum for understanding the action but leaves gaps in practical usage.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but with only one parameter (documentId) and 0% schema description coverage, the tool's purpose inherently clarifies that 'documentId' refers to the archived document to restore. This compensates adequately for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format or validation details.

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The description 'Restore an archived document' clearly states the verb ('restore') and resource ('archived document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'archive_document' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'restore_document' which might handle different types of restoration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restore_document' or 'list_archived_documents'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be archived) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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