crystal_unarchive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context by naming the source location (.ccrystals/archive/) and the destination (active cave), i.e. a state transition, but it omits critical mutation semantics: whether restoring overwrites an existing active crystal with the same id, required permissions, and error behavior when the id is not archived.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and the resource. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title or schema.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly: what is restored and from/to where. The only meaningful gap is the overwrite/conflict behavior on an already-active id, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents crystal_id ('Identifier of the crystal to restore'). The description adds no format, naming, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb (Restore) and resource (an archived crystal), and the 'archived' qualifier plus the archive path makes the inverse relationship to crystal_archive clear without opening either schema. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, which is what separates a 4 from 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'use this to bring an archived crystal back' from the wording, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (e.g. crystal must currently be archived), and no reference to alternatives such as crystal_archive or crystal_hydrate.

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