Restore Page

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-destructive profile, but the description adds a genuinely important side effect the schema cannot convey: child pages are restored along with the parent. It still doesn't mention conflict/name-collision behavior or whether a trashed ancestor is required, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 zero filler; the action and its cascade behavior come first, the prerequisite lookup second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, the cascade effect, and how to obtain the id. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (missing ancestor, name conflict), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'page' parameter is already documented as an id or slug id from list_trash, so the description only echoes the schema's provenance hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 and resource ('Restore a page') plus the source location ('from the Trash'), which implicitly separates it from restore_page_version and restore_snapshot. It does not explicitly name those look-alike siblings, but the Trash framing makes the scope clear.

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?

'Use list_trash to find it' gives concrete workflow guidance and names the sibling that supplies the required identifier. It does not cover when-not-to-use (e.g., restoring a previous version vs. a trashed page), which keeps it below a 5.

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