restore_document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about the 30-day recovery window and returns a confirmation, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise with bulleted use cases and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 simple tool with one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description fully explains when to use it, what it does, and the outcome. It covers the essential context without gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'document_id'. The description only repeats 'The document ID to restore' without adding format, constraints, or how to obtain it. This minimally compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 recovers a document from trash to active status, using specific verb 'Recovers' and resource 'document'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive, delete, or move, as no other tool focuses on trash restoration.

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 lists clear use cases: retrieve accidentally deleted, restore from trash, recover within 30 days, access previously trashed content. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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