restore_email

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it moves emails from Trash to INBOX or a specified folder, and states it does not work on permanently deleted messages. This is sufficient for a simple restore operation, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, followed by usage context and a limitation. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, and a critical limitation. No gaps remain.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, and the description adds value by explaining that targetFolder defaults to INBOX and that emailId uses FOLDER::UID format from other tools, exceeding what the schema provides.

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 'Move an email from Trash back to INBOX or to a specified folder' and explicitly ties it to undoing a trash_email operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like trash_email and move_email.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('Use to undo a trash_email operation') and what not to do ('Does not work on permanently deleted messages — only messages currently in Trash can be restored'), providing clear guidance on appropriate context.

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