Restore drawing

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: restoration to the original folder, and the fallback chain to the nearest ancestor folder or top level when that folder is gone. What's missing is failure behavior for a drawing that isn't trashed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the edge-case outcome. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the folder-fallback semantics well. It omits error/return behavior, a minor gap given how simple the tool is.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The id of a trashed drawing.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id beyond the trash precondition, which matches the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('takes a drawing out of the trash') and implies the trash-to-folder transition, which cleanly separates it from restore_folder. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, but the resource noun makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied through the precondition that the drawing is in the trash. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a pointer to trash_drawing/restore_folder as alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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