File Trash Restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that this is a write, that it is empirically unreliable, that it may return 'Restored <path>' without the file actually reappearing, and the root cause (file rm performs a hard delete so no trash entry exists). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious failure mode an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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 action and its write nature are front-loaded before the warning, and every clause earns its place. Slightly dense in the warning block but free of filler or 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 mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema present, and a full schema, the description supplies the missing critical context: the operation's unreliability and a verification step. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its result is absent.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no path/host/port syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('从回收站恢复文件') and tags it as a write operation, which cleanly separates it from file_trash_list/file_trash_clear by verb. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest sibling (file_team_trash_restore), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives a clear operational context (restore an item from the recycle bin) and actively instructs the agent to confirm the result with file_property afterwards. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement about which sibling to prefer, but the follow-up routing is genuinely actionable.

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