restore_from_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains destination defaulting and overwrite behavior, but does not disclose side effects like removing the item from Trash, failure conditions, or permission requirements.

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 compact and efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a short, focused parameter list. Every line adds useful information with no filler.

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 relatively simple restore operation, the description covers the action and all parameters clearly. It lacks some behavioral details like return values or conflict handling specifics, but it is sufficiently complete given the tool's scope.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains path format with an example, notes destination is optional and falls back to the original path, and clarifies the overwrite flag's purpose. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a file or folder from Trash.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trash, empty_trash, and delete.

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 context implies that this tool is used for items already in Trash, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like empty_trash or delete. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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