test_cases_unarchive

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it restores the test case to a specified folder and returns the status to the previous or FINISHED if no previous status. This goes beyond the schema to explain side effects, though it does not detail auth requirements or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a tag. It front-loads the purpose and adds essential details without verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the action well, including status change. However, it does not mention the return value or output, which could be useful for an agent. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited additional meaning beyond the schema. It reinforces that folderId must belong to the same project and not be a trash folder, which is already in the schema description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool unarchives a test case, specifying the verb 'Unarchive' and resource 'test case'. It distinguishes from siblings like test_cases_archived_list by focusing on the action of restoring an archived test case.

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 specifies when to use this tool: when a test case has statusId === ARCHIVED. It gives the condition for use, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. The context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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