restore task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the Trash-recovery context and ownership scope, which is useful. It does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the task is not in trash) or permission requirements, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and the second sentence provides a crucial distinction without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 action with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and domain. It could mention error conditions (e.g., task not in trash) or return format, but the explicit 'from Trash' and annotations make it reasonably complete.

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?

The single parameter task_id is self-evident from the tool name and description. The description's 'owned Task' adds a semantic constraint (the task must be owned) beyond the schema's type/format, providing meaningful context. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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?

Description states 'Restore an owned Task from Trash' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly distinguishes from archive restoration ('This is Trash recovery, not archive restoration.'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like unarchive_task.

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 (Trash recovery) and an explicit exclusion (not archive restoration), which helps the agent choose this over unarchive_task. However, it does not fully elaborate on when to use it or mention alternatives for other resource types, though the name pattern and sibling list make those implicit.

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