things_restore_item

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that normal write permissions are required, a current revision and unique request ID are needed, closed items are unsupported, and project children cannot be enumerated before restoration. This adds meaningful non-obvious behavioral context that the schema and annotations do not carry. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or idempotentHint=true.

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 is compact and front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences each add necessary constraints or ordering prerequisites without redundancy. The phrasing is efficient, and every clause serves a distinct purpose.

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 state-changing restore operation with a nested target, required revision, request ID, and project-child ordering pitfalls, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, constraints, and restoration-order behavior. The output schema is present, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. The 'receipt verifies exposed root fields and destination' note adds useful completion context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description maps the three parameters to real-world meanings: 'current revision' for expectedRevision, 'unique request ID' for requestId, and the target kind distinction between 'open to-do' and 'open project' for the target object. It also implies the destination behavior based on kind. It does not fully describe all validation or edge cases, but it compensates reasonably for the schema gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Restore one open to-do to Inbox or one open project to Today from Trash.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like things_trash_item and things_move_item, whose direction of action is the opposite. The destination nuance for todos versus projects adds precise scope.

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 use context: restore only from Trash, only open items, and restore a project before its children. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different operations, but the exclusion of closed items and the ordering requirement give practical guidance. It would be stronger with an explicit 'use things_move_item for non-Trash moves' note.

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