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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the semantic context of restoring from trash, but does not disclose side effects such as where files are restored, conflicts, missing IDs, or permission requirements. It is acceptable but minimal.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and target condition efficiently, which is ideal for a tool with a simple 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?

The description is minimally adequate for a three-parameter bulk operation with an output schema, but it omits useful context about workspace resolution, behavior for already-restored or invalid file IDs, and the relationship to bulk_trash_files and empty_trash.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the action of restoring, so the baseline score 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 (restore) with a clear resource (files) and a condition (previously moved to trash), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_trash_files, bulk_move_files, and empty_trash.

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 'previously moved to trash' implies the tool should be used for trashed files, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or warn against using this after empty_trash or for non-trashed files.

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