Restore an archived conversation to the active list by providing its session ID. Use it when a session must be reopened; it returns a conflict if the session was not archived.
Desarquiva uma conversa arquivada (volta à lista ativa). CONFLICT se não estava arquivada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | session_id (texto) ou id UUID da sessão |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable mutation. The description adds real value by disclosing the state transition (back to the active list) and the CONFLICT failure mode, which the annotations do not express. It says nothing about permissions, side effects on history, or the response shape, so it is helpful but not rich.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the error condition; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic "CONFLICT se..." fragment is terse but still parseable, so it avoids a 5 only on polish rather than 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 single-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent state toggle with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: the effect, the resulting state, and the failure case. Remaining gaps (permissions, return payload) are minor given the annotations and schema.
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 single session_id parameter is documented in the schema as accepting either a text session_id or a UUID. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 and resource (unarchive an archived conversation) plus the resulting state change (returns to the active list), which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not name the sibling archive_session as its inverse, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
"CONFLICT se não estava arquivada" effectively defines a when-not condition: the tool only applies to sessions currently in the archived state. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. archive_session for the reverse direction), but the precondition removes most mis-selection risk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.