Unarchives a paywall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent, destructive operation. The description adds that it "changes community state" and requires confirm=true, but does not say what is destroyed, whether the action is reversible, or whether re-running it is safe despite the false idempotency hint.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action is stated first and the confirm requirement second. It is efficient, though the "Changes community state" clause overlaps with what the destructiveHint annotation already conveys.

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 3-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers action and the confirm gate but leaves reversibility and side effects on the paywall's associated state implicit. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive operation.

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%, so account, confirm, and paywall_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the meaning of confirm ("for the user-requested action") but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Unarchives a paywall"), which is unambiguous and self-evidently the inverse of the sibling archive_paywall. It does not explicitly name or contrast against that sibling, but the action is clearly distinguishable from list/get/update paywall tools.

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?

"requires confirm=true for the user-requested action" implies the tool should only be called when the user explicitly asked to unarchive, which is useful gating guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g., paywall must currently be archived), and no named alternatives.

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