restore_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time constraint but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or behavior if the library is not in trash or the window has expired. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the restore window.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and including the critical constraint. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 the simple operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and constraint. However, it lacks details on failure scenarios (e.g., expired window, library not in trash) and does not mention the outcome or integration with sibling tools like list_trash.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds a usage constraint but does not provide additional semantic meaning for the parameters themselves beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Restore a context library from trash' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like delete_library and list_trash by specifying the operation and the constraint of the 30-day restore window.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (to restore from trash) and includes the prerequisite condition of the 30-day restore window. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives like using list_trash to verify the library's presence.

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