unarchive_contact

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

The description discloses idempotency, a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover permissions, side effects, or behavior when the contact is not already archived. The description carries the full burden but only provides minimal behavioral information.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the idempotency note is efficiently placed. It earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 toggle operation, the description covers the core action and idempotency. However, given the absence of annotations and an output schema, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., contact must be archived) and potential side effects. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to call it confidently without additional context.

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 does not explain the parameters (workspaceId, contactId) at all. The schema only lists them as strings with no descriptions. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, its failure to provide any parameter guidance is a significant gap.

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 action: 'Reactivate a soft-archived contact' with the verb 'Reactivate' and resource 'contact'. It also notes idempotency, making it distinct from archive_contact and other contact operations. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings.

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 implies the tool is used to undo archiving, which is clear from the context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple unarchive operation the usage context is self-evident. There is no mention of prerequisites, but the action is specific.

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