Unarchive Product

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

Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral context: products become visible to buyers after unarchiving. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, permissions, or side effects when products are already unarchived.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an AI agent to understand the core functionality. Minor gaps remain (e.g., handling of invalid IDs), but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds little beyond the schema's parameter description ('Array of Ozon product IDs to unarchive'). The description states to provide an array of product_ids, which is redundant.

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 (restore/unarchive), the resource (products on Ozon), and the effect (visible to buyers). It distinguishes from siblings like archive_product and get_product by specifying the opposite operation.

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 usage for unarchiving archived products but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., archive_product for archiving). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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