unarchive_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the report is not currently archived, reversibility, or side effects on runs/schedules — significant gaps for a write operation.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the whole definition is very short with no filler. The "Args:" docstring boilerplate is slightly redundant but does not bloat the text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, as an unannotated mutation tool with an undocumented parameter and no mention of preconditions or side effects, the definition leaves an agent guessing about safe 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but "report_token: The report to unarchive" merely restates the parameter name/type with no format, token source, or example. It adds no real semantics beyond the schema.

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?

"Restore an archived report" gives a specific verb (restore) and resource (archived report), and the inverse relationship to the sibling archive_report is inferable from the name and wording. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with archive_report, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only through the phrase "archived report" — no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of archive_report or other siblings as alternatives. An agent gets no routing guidance beyond the obvious inverse naming.

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