Restore an archived Linear release to active status by providing its release ID.
Unarchive a release
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| releaseId | Yes | The ID of the release to unarchive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| release | No | ||
| 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 and non-destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral detail (e.g., permissions, impact on related items).
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, compact sentence that conveys the essential action. No wasted words or extraneous details.
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?
For a simple tool with annotations and output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks context about usage order (e.g., only applies to archived releases) or relation to sibling tools.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes releaseId as 'The ID of the release to unarchive'. The description adds no further meaning.
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 verb (Unarchive) and resource (release), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling linear_archiveRelease beyond the opposite verb.
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 (e.g., archiveRelease, completeRelease). No context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.