Restore collections from the trash

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: restoration only works for non-permanent deletions, the local API cannot list trashed collections, and permanent deletions are irreversible. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the core action, the key prerequisite and discovery limitation, and the permanent-deletion caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, the description covers the operational constraints that matter: key requirement, inability to discover trashed collections, and permanent-deletion irreversibility. An agent has enough context to use the tool correctly and to ask the user for the needed key.

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%, so the schema already documents collectionKeys and groupId. The description reinforces that the key must be known but does not add new parameter-level semantics. It meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 states a specific action ('bring collections back out of Zotero's trash') and names the exact operation it reverses ('undoing a non-permanent zotero_delete_collection'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like zotero_restore_items and zotero_delete_collection.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use the tool, requires the user to know the collection key, explains why the keys cannot be discovered via the API, directs the user to the Zotero trash window, and states that permanently deleted collections cannot be restored. This is strong when-to-use guidance with clear exclusions.

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