unarchive_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (setting closed=false and restoring to list), but does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main action, and the second adds context. No superfluous words or details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the behavior for already unarchived cards or required permissions.

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 description does not elaborate on the 'card_id' parameter or any other input. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Unarchive' and the resource 'Trello card', and explains the underlying action with technical detail ('set closed=false'). It also mentions the effect of restoring the card to its list. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'archive_card'.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to unarchive a card. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context and sibling tools (e.g., archive_card) allow the agent to infer appropriate usage. For a simple operation, this is sufficient.

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