restore_from_trash

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

Description adds 'Safe, key-preserving' beyond what annotations declare, providing reassurance about non-destructiveness and key stability. It also notes the item's current version requirement. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information to use it correctly. It covers the key constraint (version provenance) and safety profile, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

Description explains the 'version' parameter in detail ('the item's current version (from list_trash)'), but does not describe 'key' beyond its name. With schema coverage at 0%, this partial compensation is adequate but not fully complete.

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: 'Remove an item from the trash, restoring it to the library.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like trash_item and delete_item_permanently.

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 context for use by specifying that version comes from list_trash, implying the item must be in the trash. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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