Unarchive Chore

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

The description discloses the key behavioral transition from archived to active. Since no annotations are provided, it carries the transparency burden, but it omits details like idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the chore is already active. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler 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 one-parameter state-transition tool, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the archived-to-active transition is clearly implied.

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%: the single parameter chore_id is already clearly documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Unarchive') with a clear resource ('a chore') and adds the clarifying state transition '(back to active)'. This cleanly distinguishes it from related tools like archive_chore, pause_chore, or delete_chore.

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 '(back to active)' implies the intended use case: reactivating an archived chore. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as not applying to paused or deleted chores.

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