Restore MIO Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the trash→inbox state change, but omits notable behavior the schema allows: bulk restore of an array of IDs, and what happens if the message isn't in trash.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys verb, resource, and state transition. Nothing wasted.

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 one-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description is essentially complete. The only minor gap is not surfacing the bulk/array restore capability in prose.

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% – the schema documents message_id fully, including the UUID format, the source tool (get-mio-messages), and single-or-array usage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (MIO message), plus the state transition from trash to inbox. This clearly distinguishes it from delete-mio-message and move-mio-message, though it doesn't reference those siblings by name.

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?

'From trash back to the inbox' implies the precondition that the message must be deleted, which is useful context. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (move-mio-message, delete-mio-message) is given, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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