gateway_knowledge_trash_restore

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

Annotations only provide a title, no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a restore of a soft-deleted document, implying a mutation that reverses a prior delete. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, whether the original path must be available, or what happens if the path is occupied. It adds some context beyond the title but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a brief note about parameters without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description is thin for a mutation tool with two parameters and zero schema coverage. It lacks guidance on how to obtain trash_id, whether space is required, and what success/failure looks like. Given the sibling trash_list exists, a pointer to it would complete the workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'soft-deleted document' and 'original path' but does not explain the 'trash_id' parameter or the optional 'space' parameter. An agent cannot tell what trash_id refers to (likely the ID from trash list) or how space scopes the operation. This is a significant gap.

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 soft-deleted document to its original path' clearly states the verb (restore), the resource (soft-deleted document), and the outcome (original path). It distinguishes itself from the sibling gateway_knowledge_document_restore by specifying 'soft-deleted' and 'trash' context, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies usage: use this when a document is in the trash and needs to be restored to its original location. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like gateway_knowledge_document_restore, which may handle version restoration. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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