restore collection

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the useful distinction of archive restoration vs. trash recovery, but does not disclose effects like the collection becoming active again or preservation of contents.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the essential message with no redundant text. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key distinction. It could mention post-restore state or error conditions, but the low complexity makes this sufficient.

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. It only refers to 'this archived Collection', which weakly implies collection_id as the target, but does not explain how to obtain or use the ID.

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 'Restore this archived Collection', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from potential confusion by explicitly noting 'This is archive restoration, not Trash recovery.'

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for restoring an archived Collection. It also provides an exclusion by stating it is not for Trash recovery, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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