unarchive_user

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 adds a useful permission requirement and constrains the target users to supervisors/interviewers. But it omits behavioral preconditions (e.g., the user must currently be archived) and side effects (e.g., restoring access), leaving some uncertainty.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and object, followed by a concise permission note. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with one unexplained. The description does not clarify the 'profile' parameter, the expected response, or prerequisites beyond permission, so an agent lacks enough context for fully correct invocation.

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%, so the description needed to clarify the parameters. It indirectly clarifies user_id by limiting it to supervisor/interviewer users, but the optional 'profile' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose and format ambiguous.

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?

States the specific action 'unarchive' and the resource 'supervisor or interviewer user'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like archive_user and create_user based on the inverse action and user-type scope.

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 implies this tool is used when an archived supervisor/interviewer needs to be restored, and it notes the admin_write permission requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with archive_user or state when not to use this tool, so the selection context must be inferred.

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