restore_page

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the useful precondition that the page must be soft-deleted and in trash, but it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or side effects such as conflicts with existing pages. This adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and its precondition. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Minor omissions such as exact error behavior are not essential for correct usage.

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 fully documents the only parameter, page_id, including accepted forms ('Page UUID or slugId'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.

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 and resource: 'Restore a soft-deleted page from trash.' This clearly distinguishes it from inverse operations like delete_page and from list_trash, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context by specifying that the page must be soft-deleted and in the trash, which tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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