kanbn_unarchive_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the action without explaining what unarchiving changes, whether it affects the task file or board state, or whether any permissions or project path settings are needed.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It earns its place, though it is terse and does not include useful sibling differentiation.

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 amutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully actionable in an agentic context. The schema covers parameters, but the behavior, side effects, and relationships to kanbn_restore_task and kanbn_archive_task are missing, leaving an incomplete picture.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully, including taskId as 'ID or filename of the task to unarchive' and path as 'Path to the project root directory.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter-level meaning but also does not need to duplicate it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Unarchive a task on the Kanbn board.' This is clear at a surface level, but it does not differentiate the tool from sibling tools such as kanbn_restore_task, kanbn_archive_task, or kanbn_load_archived_task.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than related siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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