notion_restore_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningfully add: it reveals this is UI automation ("opens it and clicks 'Restore page'") and that title-based restore depends on the sidebar Trash of the *current* workspace, which implies a workspace-scoped, session-dependent operation. It still omits permissions, failure behavior, and irreversibility/undo notes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the two selection modes parenthetically scoped. 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover ambiguity resolution (duplicate titles), behavior when the item isn't found, and what a success response looks like. It covers the operation but leaves those decision-critical gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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 coverage is 0% for two undocumented, optional parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: url is the page/database URL used to navigate and click Restore, title must be an *exact* match searched in the current workspace's Trash. It stops short of explaining which parameter wins if both are provided, or what happens if neither is.

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?

Specific verb (Restore) plus specific resource (a page or database from Notion Trash), and it even discloses the mechanism used in each mode. An agent can distinguish it from notion_restore_blocks (blocks) and notion_list_deletions (listing) without opening any schema.

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 two invocation modes (by URL vs. by exact title in the current workspace's sidebar Trash) are described, which implies when each applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated precedence when both url and title are supplied, and no pointer to notion_restore_blocks for non-page objects.

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