unsuspendReactivates suspended cards, returning them to reviews. Returns true if at least one card was previously suspended; false otherwise.
Unsuspends cards so they return to reviews. Returns true if at least one card was suspended before, false otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cards | Yes | Card IDs to unsuspend (card IDs, not note IDs; get them from find_cards or notes_info). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: the boolean return semantics (true only if at least one card was previously suspended). It leaves open how nonexistent or already-active card IDs are handled.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the return-value contract. No wasted wording and nothing buried.
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 one-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers effect and return value. Only edge-case behavior for invalid or already-unsuspended IDs is unstated, which is a minor gap.
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 parameter already spells out that these are card IDs, not note IDs, and where to get them. The description adds no further meaning about the cards array, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Unsuspends cards") plus the effect ("return to reviews"), which makes it unambiguously the inverse of the sibling suspend tool. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 purpose implies when to use it — cards that are suspended and should re-enter reviews — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (e.g. suspend, are_suspended) for checking state first. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.