restore_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior: restores page and children, is counterpart to delete_block, and supports cascading restoration. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., restored state of associated data) or authorization needs.

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 relatively concise but contains slight redundancy (e.g., mentioning counterpart to delete_block twice). The structure with an Args section is helpful and front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity (restore operation with cascade), the description adequately covers core behavior, prerequisites (trashed page), and relationship to siblings. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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?

The schema has one parameter (page_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'The page to restore from trash,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema definition.

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 that the tool restores a page and its children from trash, and explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_block and update_page by noting it is the supported way to unarchive and handles cascading restoration.

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 explains when to use this tool (as the dedicated unarchive tool, since update_page blocks archived=False) and mentions cascading restoration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for non-page blocks.

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