restore_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the core action and does not explain side effects, error behavior, or what happens if a note already exists at the restored path.

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 one short, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices semantic detail that is needed elsewhere.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is minimal but incomplete: the parameter meaning is entirely absent, and the output schema does not compensate for the missing guidance on how to call 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?

The required 'path' parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what path refers to (trash location vs. original location). The agent cannot determine correct input semantics from available information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restaure'), a clear resource ('une note'), and a clear source ('la corbeille'), which distinguishes it from related operations like trash_note, delete_note, and even restore_deleted_asset.

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 intended use is implied: use this to restore a trashed note. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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