wb_cards_recover_from_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a state-changing action ('restore') but does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether already-restored or non-trashed nmIDs cause errors, permission requirements, or any other behavioral nuance an agent would need to anticipate.

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 one clear sentence with no filler, and the core information is front-loaded. The parenthetical Russian translation is redundant but harmless. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential operation and relevant data needed to invoke it. It could be more complete by noting response behavior, but no critical invocation detail is missing for a straightforward restore action.

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 schema already describes nm_ids as 'nmIDs to restore', so the description adds little beyond confirming the parameter's role. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for a well-covered single parameter; the description does not introduce format, constraints, or edge-case details not already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Restore'), a specific resource ('cards from trash'), and the key identifier ('nmID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like wb_cards_move_to_trash and wb_cards_list, making the core purpose immediately obvious.

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 context 'from trash' implies the appropriate use case: restoring cards that were previously moved to trash. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as wb_cards_trash for listing trashed cards or wb_cards_move_to_trash for the reverse operation, leaving usage guidance largely implicit.

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