documents_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation, leaving unclear whether restoration is reversible, requires permissions, overwrites existing documents, or affects permissions/metadata.

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 declarative sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important operational details such as whether restoration targets the original location, any time limits, or the effect of revisionId. The complete schema does not fully compensate for this gap.

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 fully documents both parameters (id and revisionId) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by specifying valid source states (archived/deleted), but does not explain the role of revisionId beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action (restore) and the target (an archived or deleted document). It distinguishes from sibling tools like documents_archive and documents_delete by explicitly naming the states being reversed.

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 implies usage for archived or deleted documents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Given the presence of sibling archive/delete tools, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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