restore_from_trash

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it explains the restoration to original location and fallback to root. However, it omits details like required permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the item is already restored.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Critical information (purpose and edge case) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a 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?

For a simple restoration tool with no output schema, the description covers the main function and a key edge case (missing parent). It could be improved by mentioning that restore is only possible from trash (implicitly clear from name) and any constraints (e.g., user must have permissions).

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions of 'itemId' and 'type' (with auto-detect). 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 clearly states the verb 'restore' and the resource 'file or folder from the trash'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'empty_trash' (permanent deletion) and 'delete_folder' (moves to trash) by focusing on restoration.

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 implies usage for restoring trashed items and mentions the fallback to root if parent missing, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'empty_trash' or when not to use (e.g., if item was permanently deleted).

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