wallabag_unarchive_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the state change but omits idempotency, required permissions, and whether 'unarchived' and 'unread' are actually the same state — the slash phrasing is ambiguous for a mutating tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Only the compressed 'unarchived/unread' phrasing costs it perfection.

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 needn't be documented. For a state-mutating tool with no annotations, the description lacks idempotency and permission context, leaving it minimally adequate.

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% and the single entry_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier format or source.

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 ('Mark ... as unarchived/unread') and resource (wallabag entry). Its inverse relationship to the sibling wallabag_archive_entry is obvious from the name, though the description itself doesn't call out the sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is only implied by the tool name being the inverse of wallabag_archive_entry; an agent can infer it but the description does not state it.

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