restore note

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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the archive-vs-trash distinction, which is helpful context, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or response 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 description consists of two short sentences: 'Restore an archived Note. This is not Trash recovery.' Every word earns its place, and the key information is 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, the description covers the core purpose and distinguishes from trash recovery. However, it does not clarify preconditions (e.g., the note must be archived) or behavior if the note is already active, leaving some 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the note_id parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning such as 'the ID of the archived note to restore.'

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 (restore), the resource (an archived Note), and explicitly differentiates from trash recovery. This distinguishes it from related operations like restore_task or delete_note, though it doesn't name the specific alternative tool.

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 implies use when you want to unarchive a note, and explicitly excludes trash recovery, providing clear context. It lacks a more comprehensive 'when-not-to-use' beyond trash, but the given guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.

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