restore_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action with no details about side effects, required permissions, error cases (e.g., page not archived), or whether the operation is reversible. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. Every word is meaningful and directly communicates the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the operation and when it applies. It could be more complete by mentioning expected outcomes or permissions, but the low complexity makes this description adequate for correct invocation.

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 describes page_id as 'Page UUID to restore' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 'Restore a previously archived Notion page' clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (previously archived Notion page). It distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like archive_page, create_page, and delete_block by specifying the exact operation and target.

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 phrase 'previously archived' gives clear context that this tool should be used for pages that are currently archived, not for other states. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses full exclusionary guidance.

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