restore_from_trash

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

Annotations already communicate that this is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the contextual effect of returning documents to the system, but it does not describe edge cases such as restoring a document that is not in the trash, whether metadata is preserved, or what the API returns.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the action and its scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation operation, the description combined with the schema and annotations covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining result expectations or preconditions, but those gaps are minor given the low complexity.

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 100%, with the documents parameter already documented as 'Array of document IDs to restore.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb, 'Restore', and a clear resource, 'documents from the trash', then states the destination, 'back to the system.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from related operations like list_trash, empty_trash, and delete_document.

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 phrase 'from the trash' implies the tool should be used on trashed documents, but no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent must infer the contrast with empty_trash or delete_document rather than being told.

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