Restore Archived or Deleted Item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 30-day auto-purge limit and permission rules for different scopes. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as idempotency, what happens if the item doesn't exist, or any side effects (e.g., restoring a task may affect linked entities).

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 description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient with no obvious redundancy, though the list of entity types could be considered slightly verbose given the enum in the schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (restoring items with time limits and varying permissions) and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects, entity types, restrictions, and permissions. It omits potential error cases or return value details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description lists entity types and mentions UUID format for entity_id, adding marginal value over the schema. Baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states 'Restore a previously archived or soft-deleted item back to active state' and lists supported entity types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'restore_items', which may be a batch version, so clarity is high but not maximal.

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?

The description provides clear context for usage: restoration must be done within 30 days for soft-deleted items, and permission rules are given (org-scoped vs personal-scoped). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently informative.

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