restore_from_recycle_bin

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is already conveyed. The description adds useful context that the restore target can be the original location or a destination, but it does not explain the destructive risk (e.g., overwrites) or the role of the overwrite flag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its target reach the reader immediately. It is efficient, though quite terse given the tool's mutation surface.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description omits overwrite semantics and permission/prerequisite context that an agent would need to invoke it safely.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at dest_folder vs original-location behavior but says nothing about 'share', 'paths', or the default-false 'overwrite' flag, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 resource ('deleted files from a shared folder's recycle bin') plus the outcome ('to their original location or a specified destination'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_recycle_bin, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (recover deleted files), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_recycle_bin for inspecting first, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., paths must exist in the bin).

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