restore_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of exposing mutation semantics. It clearly says the note is brought back and enumerates the error cases. It doesn't state whether restore is reversible or what metadata changes, but for this scope it is reasonably transparent.

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, both informative. First sentence states the primary action; second sentence enumerates error cases and a remediation step. No filler or schema repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, error scenarios collectivized and a remedy. The only notable gap from an agent perspective is not explicitly naming the id parameter as the note identifier, but the context makes it clear.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage and the tool description never explicitly explains that the single id parameter must be the ID of the soft-deleted note. It is inferable from the tool purposeholster, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific operational purpose: 'Undo delete_note: brings a soft-deleted note back.' This clearly identifies the action, the resource affected, and the precondition (the note must be soft-deleted). There is no ambiguity about what restore_note does.

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?

States when to use it (to undo delete_note on a soft-deleted note) and, importantly, when it will fail: never deleted, already restored, purged past retention, or title conflict. It even gives a recovery step ('rename one first, then retry'), which an agent can act on directly.

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