unarchive_contact

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the parenthetical '(idempotent)' repeats structured data without adding value. The one genuinely additive detail is 'soft-archived', which tells the agent the archive is reversible/soft rather than a hard delete, but permissions, side effects, and the odd destructiveHint on a restorative operation are left unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and object first. Slightly wasteful because the '(idempotent)' clause merely echoes the annotation.

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 two-required-param mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it does not say what is returned, what happens on a non-archived contact, or why the tool is flagged destructive. An agent still has to guess at call semantics.

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?

Both required parameters (workspaceId, contactId) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about their meaning, format, or scoping role. With two undocumented required params, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Reactivate') and resource ('contact') with a qualifier that scopes it to soft-archived records, which separates it from archive_contact and update_contact. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'soft-archived contact' implies the precondition for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no note about what happens for a contact that is not archived, and no mention of alternatives.

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