Recover Wiki Page

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, but no readOnlyHint. The description adds the requirement of a recovery token, which is useful, but it does not disclose post-recovery behavior, potential side effects, or any restrictions. This is similar to a baseline where the description adds minimal context beyond what the title and schema already convey.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant wording, conveying the core functionality efficiently.

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 simplicity (one parameter, presence of an output schema, and clear prerequisites from the schema), the description is complete enough. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that, and the token origin is already in the schema. Minor gaps like error handling are not essential for this simple action.

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 already documents the sole parameter with 100% coverage, including the fact that the token is returned by page_delete. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Recover' with the resource 'a deleted Yandex Wiki page' and the mechanism 'using a recovery token.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_delete, page_create, or page_update. No ambiguity exists about the tool's function.

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 implies usage when a user has a recovery token obtained from page_delete, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5. The phrase 'recovery token' itself signals the prerequisite without further elaboration.

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