restore_document

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior (recovering from trash to active status) and includes important constraints like the 30-day limit for deleted documents. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the document is not in trash.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or the exact structure of the result message. The 30-day constraint is a valuable addition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning by explaining that 'document_id' is 'The document ID to restore', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't specify format or validation rules for the ID.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Recovers') and resource ('a document from the trash back to active status'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'unarchive_document' or 'list_trash'. It explicitly mentions the action of restoring from trash, which is distinct from other document operations.

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 explicit usage guidelines with a bulleted list of when to use this tool (e.g., 'Retrieve accidentally deleted documents', 'Restore documents from trash to active use'), including specific constraints like 'within the last 30 days'. It clearly differentiates this from other tools by focusing on trash recovery.

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