Restore a deleted item

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

Annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral substance on top: the scope of what is restored (attachments and related records), the 30-day recoverability limit, the fallback behavior when the parent location/box no longer exists, and the return payload (restored item's id and name). None of this is derivable from the annotations or schema, and nothing contradicts them — restoring is consistent with a non-destructive write.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the action and source, followed by a usage condition, then the edge case and return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent otherwise could not know: the 30-day recovery limit, what related data comes back, the degraded-restore case, the follow-up tool, and the shape of the response. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The deleted item's id, from recently_deleted', so the description's mention of the same source adds only minor reinforcement. With one fully-described parameter, the baseline of 3 is correct; the description does not add new syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Brings back an item from Recently deleted') and immediately names the data source ('ids from recently_deleted'). It also enumerates what the restore carries with it (photos, documents, warranties, maintenance) and names the sibling (move_item) that handles the related follow-up, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_item or move_item 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the person wants a deleted thing back within 30 days') plus a hard constraint (the 30-day window). It also handles the notable edge case — the item's place or box being removed meanwhile — and routes the agent to move_item for that follow-up, which is exactly the alternative-selection guidance an agent needs.

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