Restore card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add placement semantics — and it does: the item returns to its original column and position, and a restored board brings its contents back. It does not address what happens if the target is no longer trashed or the parent column was deleted, a minor gap given the annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded and nothing is truly wasted, including the useful board-contents caveat. The second sentence is comma-cluttered ('in the column, it was trashed from, at its old place'), which slightly hurts readability but not clarity.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value hint (column_id set when restored into a column) and the restore-location behavior. It is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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% and the schema already says card_id is 'ID of a trashed card or board from list_trash.' The description repeats that scope rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail. The mention of column_id is a return-value note, not parameter guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Take a card or board out of the trash and put it back where it was.' It also clarifies the scope beyond the tool name (cards AND boards), which no sibling tool does, clearly separating it from trash_cards and list_trash.

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?

It points the agent at list_trash as the source of valid IDs and restricts use to 'items in your own trash, as list_trash shows them,' which is clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., restoring an item that isn't trashed), so it falls short of naming exclusions.

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