unarchive_dialog

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the target folder (folder=0), which clarifies the effect. Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description does not contradict annotations and provides a small but useful behavioral detail.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key detail (folder=0). It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and the target folder. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the dialog must be archived) or behavior when the dialog is already unarchived, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter 'chat' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain what this parameter represents, though it is inferable from the tool name. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's exact format and meaning.

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 clearly states the action: 'Вернуть диалог из архива в основной список (folder=0)' (Return dialog from archive to main list). It uses a specific verb (unarchive/return), identifies the resource (dialog), and distinguishes it from the sibling archive_dialog by explicitly specifying the direction (from archive to folder=0).

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?

The description implies the usage context: this tool is for undoing archiving and moving a dialog back to the main list. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool archive_dialog and the direction stated in the description. No exclusions are provided, but none are critical for this simple operation.

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