unarchive task

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

Annotations already convey mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context that the operation restores visibility and is limited to manually archived tasks. It does not disclose error conditions (e.g., if the task is not archived) or other side effects, but given the simple scope and annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and scope in seven words, earning maximum conciseness.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. The main gap is the lack of distinction from the sibling restore_task, but 'manually archived' partially addresses this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description provides no information about the task_id parameter, and schema coverage is 0% (no property descriptions). Since the schema does not explain the parameter, the description should have compensated but did not. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description still leaves the agent without explicit semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore'), resource ('manually archived Task'), and scope ('to active visibility'). It clearly distinguishes from archive_task and, by specifying 'manually archived', hints at a difference from restore_task (which may handle trashed tasks). This is a clear and specific statement of purpose.

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 phrase 'manually archived' implies this tool is for tasks previously archived via archive_task, providing some context. However, there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g., restore_task) should be used for other states (like trashed). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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