restore_folderRestores a trashed folder and its contents; if the original parent is gone, it places the folder in the nearest existing parent or at the top level.
Takes a folder out of the trash, with everything that was trashed with it. If its parent folder is gone, it lands in the nearest folder above it, or at the top level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of a trashed folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the cascade of trashed children and the fallback placement when the parent folder is gone. It still omits error behavior for an invalid or non-trashed id, so it falls short of fully transparent.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the edge-case relocation behavior second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the cascade effect, and the notable parent-missing edge case. Only failure modes (invalid id, folder not in trash) and any conflict-renaming behavior are left unstated, which are minor 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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The id of a trashed folder', which the description merely echoes. No added detail on id format, where to obtain the id, or whether ids from other endpoints are accepted, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (restore) and resource (folder) plus the scope of the operation — the folder comes back with everything that was trashed alongside it. The folder-versus-drawing distinction from the sibling restore_drawing is unambiguous from the description text itself.
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 implied by 'takes a folder out of the trash', so an agent can infer this applies to trashed folders only. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites or an alternative tool (e.g. what to do for drawings or for permanently deleted items).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.