unarchive_call

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds the required `calls:write` scope, which is useful auth context, but it does not explain behavior if the call is already unarchived or what side effects occur.

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 two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the auth requirement clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation, the description covers the action and required scope, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, it leaves the `id` parameter undocumented and does not describe the state transition if the call is already active.

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 sole parameter is `id`, and the schema provides 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what `id` refers to or its expected format, though 'Restore an archived call' weakly implies it is the call identifier.

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 names a precise action and target: 'Restore an archived call.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from the inverse sibling archive_call without ambiguity.

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?

It does not say when to use this tool versus archive_call, nor does it describe prerequisites beyond the OAuth scope. Usage is only inferable from the name and purpose statement.

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