Restore items from the trash

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: restored items return to their prior collections, the operation only works while items are in the trash, and the 30-day purge limit makes irreversibility explicit. This aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false 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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the postcondition about collections, and the critical scope limitation. It is front-loaded, specific, and free of filler.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what happens on success, when it will fail, and why, which is all the context needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents itemKeys and groupId clearly. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; the baseline 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 clearly states the action: bringing items back out of Zotero's trash. It distinguishes this tool from related restore/delete operations by explicitly naming zotero_delete_items as the inverse and emphasizing the trash context.

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 strong usage context: this works only for trashed items, undoes a non-permanent delete, and cannot recover permanently erased or purged items. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools such as zotero_list_trash for finding restorable keys, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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