restore_collective

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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description corroborates that by framing the operation as an un-trash action. It adds the useful context that the operation returns restored details but doesn't address permissions, failure cases, or side effects beyond moving out of trash.

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?

First sentence states purpose; the Args and Returns sections are minimal and structured. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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 definition covers what the tool does, how to source the ID, and what to expect in return. It could add a cross-reference to trash_collective/delete_collective or restore_trash_item, but nothing essential is missing for a successful call.

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 provides only type integer, while the description adds that it is a numeric collective ID and where to obtain it. This compensates for 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 action (restore) and exact resource (a collective from the trash), which sets it apart from sibling restore_collective_page and restore_trash_item. The phrase 'from the trash' scopes the operation precisely.

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 context: use it to restore a previously trashed collective, and tells where to get collective_id (list_collectives or prior trash operation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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