Restore an archived initiative to active status by providing its initiative ID, enabling continued tracking and management within Linear projects.
Unarchive an initiative
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| initiativeId | Yes | The ID of the initiative to unarchive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only. Description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as permissions or side effects.
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?
Single clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Output schema exists but description does not indicate return values or success/failure behavior. For a simple mutation, adequate but 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?
Input schema has high coverage (100%) with description for initiativeId. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states 'Unarchive an initiative' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by resource name, but does not explicitly differentiate from other unarchive tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unarchiveProject or unarchiveMilestone. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.