restore_conversation_from_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it simply restates the action with no additional context. It doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, what happens if the conversation isn't trashed, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the name already conveys.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Restore a conversation from trash.' Every word is necessary and there is no wasted information. It is exceptionally concise.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the core action is clear. However, the description lacks important contextual details such as prerequisites (conversation must be in trash), authentication requirements, and error behavior. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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, but it doesn't explain any parameters. conversation_id is implicitly the target conversation, but api_token is completely unexplained. The description adds no value over the schema's property names and types.

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 uses a specific verb 'restore' with a specific resource 'conversation' and source 'from trash', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unarchive_conversation, unspam_conversation, or unsnooze_conversation. The action is unambiguous and exactly matches the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't state that it should be used for trashed conversations only, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The context is implied by the name but not explicitly explained.

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