restore_trashed_collective

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

Annotations already cover idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'soft-deleted' detail and 'trash' context, which clarifies the state of the target, but does not disclose additional side effects or permission requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, clear sentence with the verb first, providing maximum information in minimal space. No unnecessary wording.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter; the description fully covers what it does and the parameter origin. No output schema is needed for such an operation, and no critical edge cases are omitted given the idempotent and non-destructive annotations.

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 only parameter (id) has a descriptive explanation 'Collective id from list_trashed_collectives' that exceeds the raw integer type by indicating the proper source and context for obtaining the value. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the action (restore), the target (Collective), and the context (soft-deleted/trash). It is distinct from sibling tools like permanently_delete_collective or delete_collective.

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 implicitly indicates usage for restoring previously soft-deleted items, and the parameter description 'Collective id from list_trashed_collectives' provides a clear source for the required id. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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