chats_unarchive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only transport-level endpoint metadata (POST path, gRPC method, socket event) and says nothing about idempotency, permissions, or whether unarchiving an already-active chat errors.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the action. The bracketed endpoint mappings are marginally useful for debugging but are not what an agent needs to select or invoke the tool.

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 state-toggle mutation with two undocumented required identifiers and no output schema, the definition should at minimum identify what those IDs are and what state change results. It omits all of that, and no annotations compensate.

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%: both required parameters (chatId, channelId) carry only example values, no descriptions. The description provides no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving the agent to guess what a chatId or channelId must reference.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Unarchive a chat') that an agent can distinguish from chats_archive. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation (e.g. no note that this is the inverse of chats_archive), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or conditions are given. The description is a bare verb phrase plus endpoint metadata; the agent must infer that this is called on a currently-archived chat.

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