restore_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key limitation that only trashed notes can be restored and permanently deleted ones cannot. It does not detail error behavior or response semantics, but for a simple restore operation the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical restriction is added clearly in the second sentence.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential precondition and limitation. The main gap is the lack of note_id semantics, but the operation is simple enough that the description plus schema is mostly sufficient.

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 only parameter, note_id, has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its format, source, or how to identify the target note. The meaning is largely inferable from the name, but the description adds no explicit parameter context despite 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?

States a specific verb, 'Restore', and a specific resource, 'a note from trash'. It also explicitly scopes the operation to trashed notes and excludes permanently deleted ones, which distinguishes it from tools like delete_note and trash_note.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: restore a trashed note. It also gives an explicit exclusion: does not work on permanently deleted notes, so an agent knows not to attempt it in that case.

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