unarchive_document

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical context: 'makes the document visible to all users' and the need for user confirmation, going beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with warning upfront. Every sentence adds value: impact warning, action explanation, and user confirmation instruction. No wasted words.

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 unarchive operation with one parameter, the description sufficiently covers the action and impact. No output schema needed. Slightly lacking in specifying return behavior but fine given simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'document_id', and the schema description already explains its purpose. The description adds no additional param details, achieving baseline.

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 verb 'Restores' and the resource 'archived IT Glue document', contrasting with sibling 'archive_document'. It specifies the outcome: 'appears in normal views again'.

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?

Explicitly warns 'HIGH-IMPACT' and instructs to 'Confirm with the user before invoking', guiding appropriate use. However, no direct mention of when not to use or alternatives besides the implied opposite.

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