unarchive_base_resumeRestore an archived base resume to the default list view, making it selectable again. Clears its archived status without altering other resume details.
Restore an archived base resume to list_base_resumes' default view.
Clears archived_at. The resume is again selectable; nothing else changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral detail: it clears archived_at, makes the resume selectable again, and explicitly states 'nothing else changes' — a valuable scope guarantee. It does not, however, cover error behavior (e.g. unarchiving a non-archived resume).
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the action and its scope lead, followed by the concrete state change and a reassurance clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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, single-identifier state-flip tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and with no output schema to explain, the description is nearly complete. Only the meaning/format of slug and the non-archived edge case remain unstated.
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 single slug parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description would ideally clarify it, and it does not mention slug at all. The parameter is a trivially inferable identifier, which softens the gap, but the description provides no semantic compensation for the missing schema documentation.
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 (restore/unarchive) and resource (an archived base resume), and the inverse action clearly distinguishes it from the sibling archive_base_resume. Naming list_base_resumes' default view scopes exactly what the operation achieves.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation itself ('restore an archived...'), and it implies a prerequisite (the resume must be archived). However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives like restore_resume_version or update_base_resume, nor the condition under which it is the wrong tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.