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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the bulk execution capability, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what happens when restoring notes with dependent items. No contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise: two short sentences that immediately convey the core action and the bulk capability. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given four parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits important context about 'unsafe', 'account', and the exact behavior or limitations of batch restores, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions note_ids for bulk support and implicitly note_id, leaving 'unsafe' and 'account' completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer their meaning or requirements from the description.

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 specifies the operation: restoring a note from the trash. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like keep_trash_note by mentioning trash-specific behavior and bulk support.

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 'Restaura uma nota da lixeira' establishes the clear context: use this tool when restoring trashed notes. Bulk support adds guidance for batched use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare alternatives.

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