unarchive_bookmark

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Unarchive a bookmark' without mentioning effects (e.g., changes the archived flag), reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. This is a minimal description that leaves significant operational unknowns.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and easily parsed.

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 with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks context about preconditions (e.g., the bookmark must be archived), side effects, or error handling. Given the presence of the output schema and schema coverage, it is adequate but not 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?

The single parameter 'bookmark_id' has a schema description ('ID of the bookmark to unarchive'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 'Unarchive a bookmark' uses a specific verb ('Unarchive') and a specific resource ('bookmark'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_bookmark. It unambiguously states the action and target.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling 'archive_bookmark' makes the usage context implied: use this to reverse an archive. No exclusions or alternative naming are provided, so it only reaches an implied level.

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