unarchive_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action of unarchiving, but omits potential side effects, idempotency, or requirements. Without annotation support, this is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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 brief but under-specified. It is a single sentence without elaboration, which crosses the line from conciseness to inadequacy for a tool with multiple parameters and complex behavior.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about when to use the tool and parameter semantics. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke this tool among 36 siblings handling similar state changes.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. The schema only provides names and types, leaving 'api_token' and 'conversation_id' unexplained. The description does nothing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 conversation' uses a specific verb and names the resource clearly. It distinguishes the action from siblings like 'restore_conversation_from_trash' or 'unsnooze_conversation', though it does not elaborate on what unarchiving entails (e.g., returning to inbox).

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. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., conversation must be archived), or contrast with similar state-change tools in the sibling list.

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