restore_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile are covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the page returns to its 'original location,' which is a small increment beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The core action and outcome are stated immediately with no filler.

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 two-integer-parameter restore operation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description captures the essential behavior (un-trash and restore location). The only gap is parameter detail, which is minor for such a simple tool. No output schema is needed for a void-style operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of pageId or collectiveId beyond the schema's bare names. The identifiers are self-descriptive, yet the description entirely omits parameter semantics, including which collective scope pageId belongs to.

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 and resource ('Restore a trashed page') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('back to its original location') that distinguishes it from restore_page_version and restore_trashed_collective. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 intended use (undoing a trash action on a page) is clearly implied by 'Restore a trashed page.' No explicit when-not conditions or alternative tools are named, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against restore_page_version (versions) and restore_trashed_collective (collectives).

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