Undo a folder deletion by restoring the folder from the trash using its ID. Errors if the folder is not in the trash.
Restore a trashed folder, undoing delete_folder. Only takes the folder out of the trash — it never rolls it back to an older revision. Reports an error if the folder is not in the trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the trashed folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description reveals that the tool only removes the folder from trash and never rolls it back to an older revision, and that it errors if the folder is not in the trash. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide, such as the non-revision behavior and error condition.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a concise clarification of limitations and error behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
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, simple operation, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and its error condition. Since there is no output schema, no return value details are expected, and the description is complete for correct invocation.
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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description for the 'id' parameter ('Id of the trashed folder'). The tool description does not add extra detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's action with a specific verb ('Restore') and resource ('trashed folder'), and directly ties it to 'undoing delete_folder'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like restore_password, which operate on a different resource type.
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 implies when to use it via 'undoing delete_folder' and provides a condition: it reports an error if the folder is not in the trash, so it should be used only for trashed folders. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like restore_password, though the resource type makes that implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.