unarchive_deal_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining the effects of unarchiving, any required permissions, reversibility, or what happens after success. This is a mutation tool with no behavioral detail beyond the name.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by an Args section. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, with no redundant words. The Args repeat schema information but add the 'Nimble' context, making it justifiable.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema (not shown), which reduces the need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and no behavioral context, the description is minimally adequate but lacks crucial information about side effects and preconditions. It does not fully cover the context for an agent to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds 'The Nimble pipeline ID' to the parameter, providing context beyond the schema's type/title. However, it does not specify formats, constraints, or examples, leaving room for more detail.

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 'Un-archive' with a clear resource 'deal pipeline', which precisely defines its function and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'archive_deal_pipeline'. This is unambiguous and directly states the tool's 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 description implies usage (to un-archive a deal pipeline) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It lacks the 'when/when-not' clarity that would earn a higher score.

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