infomaniak_restore_drive_trash_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'two-phase commit' suggests a confirmation step (likely the confirmation_token), and 'trashed-item guard' implies validation that the item is in trash. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a key behavioral trait. No wasted words; every phrase earns its place. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and informative annotations, the description is largely complete for a straightforward restore operation. It covers the core action, resource, and a key behavioral nuance ('two-phase commit'). It could mention the need for a prior list-drive-trash step or explicitly describe the guard's failure behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions cover file_id and drive_id well, with 67% coverage. The description adds some value by linking the restore action to file_id and hinting at confirmation_token through 'two-phase commit', but it does not explicitly explain the confirmation_token parameter or its role. The added meaning is marginal relative to what the schema already 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 the action ('Restore') and the resource ('one file or folder from kDrive trash'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_drive_trash_item or empty_drive_trash by focusing on restoration. The added mention of 'two-phase commit' further clarifies its unique role in the trash workflow.

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 use case is implied: restoring a single trashed item. The phrase 'from kDrive trash' and 'trashed-item guard' indicate it is meant for items currently in trash, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives (e.g., permanent deletion via remove_drive_trash_item) or mention prerequisites such as listing trash first. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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