untrash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the operation itself and gives no information about side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to associated labels or thread state.

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 clear sentence with no filler and states the core purpose immediately. It is concise, though it is so brief that it omits helpful behavioral and parameter context.

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 no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves too much to inference. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but the agent still lacks guidance on how to identify the correct account or what side effects restoring might have. It is below the minimum viable bar for a mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not clarify what 'account' refers to or that 'thread_id' must identify a thread currently in trash; it only implicitly maps 'thread' to thread_id. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 names a specific action, 'Restore', and a specific resource, 'a thread from trash'. It clearly expresses the inverse of the sibling 'trash' tool and distinguishes itself from related tools like 'archive' and 'unlabel'.

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 phrase 'from trash' implies this tool should be used when a previously trashed thread needs to be recovered, so usage context is inferable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or contrast it with alternatives like get_thread or archive.

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