restore_trashed_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is structured. The description adds meaningful semantics about what is restored ('the document itself, unlike restore_document_version which changes content'), but does not cover permissions, side effects, or reversibility beyond that.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternatives are appended efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, alternatives, and the semantic distinction from restore_document_version. It could mention the prerequisite that the document must currently be in trash, but this is strongly implied.

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% and there is only one parameter (id), whose format and meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Return one document from trash to the active library') and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings: batch_documents for multiple IDs and restore_document_version for content changes. An agent can select this tool without opening schemas.

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?

It names the alternative for multiple explicit IDs (batch_documents(action=restore)) and contrasts with restore_document_version, giving clear positive routing. It lacks an explicit when-not condition (e.g., permanently deleted items, already-active documents), so it stops short of a 5.

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