unarchive_bank_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses no rejection for already-active accounts, no other state changes, and that only the archived flag is cleared. This is unusually explicit about side effects and non-destructiveness.

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 sentences, each adding unique information: the restore action, the idempotent already-active behavior, and the precise side-effect scope. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 two-required-field mutation with no output schema, the description fully explains purpose, behavior, and side-effect boundary. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and know what will happen.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-specific guidance. workspaceId, bankAccountId, and idempotencyKey are only self-descriptive by name, and the description does not compensate 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?

The description defines a specific restore action on a Bankkonto, names the inverse archive_bank_account, and states the sole effect (clears the archived flag). This clearly distinguishes it from account-level archive/unarchive tools and other bank account operations.

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 inverse-of-archive statement and the explicit note that already-active accounts stay active give clear context for when to use the tool, including the idempotent edge case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as unarchive_account for ledger accounts, so it stops short of a 5.

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