Restore one or more deleted (archived) items back to the Grabblist. Pass a single id or an array of ids for batch restore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item ID or array of item IDs to restore | |
| reason | No | Why this change was made (shown to user in change history) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the nuance that items are 'deleted (archived)' and supports batch restore, but it does not disclose additional side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description offers some extra context but not much beyond the schema.
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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Restore one or more deleted (archived) items') and immediately clarifies usage for batch restore. Every word earns its place.
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 restore tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and batch capability. It does not explain return values or failure scenarios, but given the low complexity and the presence of sibling tools like delete_item that provide context, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%, with the id parameter described as 'Item ID or array of item IDs to restore' and reason as 'Why this change was made'. The description reinforces the id parameter by saying 'Pass a single id or an array of ids', which adds minor clarity but largely repeats the schema. No additional meaning is provided for the reason parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Restore' with the resource 'deleted (archived) items' and clearly states the action of bringing them 'back to the Grabblist'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_item and update_item by specifying the exact scope (restoring deleted/archived items) and supports batch via arrays.
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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when items are deleted/archived and need to be brought back. It also clarifies the two modes (single id or array) for batch restore. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., 'use delete_item to remove items'), but the context is clear enough given sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with no obvious duplicates. The only potential overlap is between update_item and update_price, but the descriptions clarify that update_price is specifically for manual price corrections with history tracking.
All tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., add_item, create_collection, get_item_graph). Slight deviations like add_to_collection and ping are still predictable and conventional.
With 23 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count is higher than typical for a shopping-save app and may feel overwhelming, though not excessive.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for items and collections, relations, history, activity, and utilities. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated 'move item between collections' tool—but workarounds are possible using existing tools.
