Unarchive Profile Field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — that the call changes community state — but the confirm=true note merely restates the schema's own parameter description. No mention of permissions, reversibility, or side effects.

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 with the resource and the key precondition front-loaded and no filler. Slightly redundant with the title and schema, but tight overall.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameters, so the basics are present. Still missing are the effects of unarchiving on the field's prior state and any permission requirements an agent should anticipate.

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 all three parameters (account, confirm, profile_field_id) are already documented in the schema, including the credential-selection semantics of 'account'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 ('Unarchive Profile Field'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate itself from sibling operations like archive_profile_field or delete_profile_field, leaving the routing decision to the name alone.

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 notes the confirm=true precondition, which is a usage constraint, but says nothing about when to choose unarchive over archive/delete, nor what state the field must be in for this to apply. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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