File Team Trash Restore

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the entire behavioral disclosure burden. It only notes that this is a write operation; it says nothing about required permissions, conflict behavior, reversibility, or whether existing files are overwritten.

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 no filler. Every clause contributes: action, source, and the write-operation flag.

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?

With an output schema and full param coverage, the description need not explain returns or parameters. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should still convey prerequisites or conflict behavior; the one-sentence description leaves those gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (host, port, paths, scheme, profile). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the 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 (恢复/restore) and resource (团队空间回收站/team-space recycle bin), and the parenthetical '写操作' distinguishes it as a mutation. The '团队空间' qualifier separates it from the sibling file_trash_restore, which handles personal trash.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. It does not route the agent to file_trash_restore (personal trash) or file_team_trash_list (view team trash), leaving selection to the tool name alone.

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