Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-undeleteUserContextItem

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (status changes from 'deleted' to 'candidate'), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior (e.g., if the item isn't found or isn't in 'deleted' state), or reversibility (though it is itself a reversal).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and zero filler. Every word contributes to conveying purpose and effect. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and effect. However, it lacks mention of return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., item must be in 'deleted' state), leaving some gaps for a fully contextual understanding.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Guide Note ID or item ID to restore'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mostly clarifying that the item is a soft-deleted user context item. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 resource ('soft deleted user context item') and clearly states the state transition from 'deleted' to 'candidate' in the Zettelkasten lifecycle. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteUserContextItem and archiveNote.

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 usage context is implied: it is for undoing a soft deletion and restoring access/usage tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the item being soft deleted.

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