restore_note

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a 'direct SQLite write' and requires the app to be quit, but does not explain side effects, error states, or success indicators.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and a critical behavioral note. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from slight expansion on parameters.

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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description lacks depth. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists), parameter details, or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%. The description does not clarify the purpose or effect of the 'dry_run' parameter, leaving ambiguity. The 'note_id' parameter is self-explanatory but not elaborated.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Restore') and the resource ('trashed/deleted note'). It also adds specificity with 'direct SQLite write; app must be quit', which distinguishes it from other note manipulation tools.

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 includes a crucial usage condition ('app must be quit') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_note or get_note. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios.

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