Unarchive a card

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the state-change detail ('restore to its list') and points to how archived cards are located, adding useful context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss authorization or edge cases, but these are less critical given the simple scope.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding purpose, usage, or parameter sourcing.

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, non-destructive mutation tool with complete schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to find the input, all in a compact form.

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 already describes card_id as 'Archived card to restore,' providing full coverage. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain that card_id via get_cards or search_cards, which helps the agent populate the parameter correctly.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('an archived card'), clearly distinguishing the action from siblings like archive_card. It also clarifies the outcome ('to its list'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (to restore an archived card) and how to find the required input using get_cards with include_archived: true or search_cards. This provides concrete guidance and differentiates it from archiving and searching tools.

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