speechify_restore_item

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and discloses nothing. It does not state permission requirements, whether the restored item returns to its original parent, what happens if the parent no longer exists, or how idempotency_key and expected_updated_at affect behavior.

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 single short sentence is not verbose, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the verb, and no sentence earns its place by adding information.

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 has six parameters, one required, an enum, and no annotations or output schema, so the description is the only behavioral source. One tautological sentence cannot make an agent confident about invocation or side effects.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and zero explanation in the description: name, item_id, if_exists, parent_id, idempotency_key, expected_updated_at are all undefined. The if_exists enum semantics and the interaction between parent_id and the original location are entirely undocumented.

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?

"Perform verified Speechify restore item" mostly restates the tool name, with only the unexplained qualifier "verified" added. It never says what is being restored (a trashed item, presumably), what state it returns to, or how it differs from siblings like speechify_trash_item and speechify_permanently_delete_item.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this reverses speechify_trash_item, and receives no guidance on when restore is preferable to re-creating or moving an item.

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