Restore a trashed password to active status. This reverses a previous delete operation, returning the entry from the trash without affecting historical revisions.
Restore a trashed password, undoing delete_password. Only takes the entry out of the trash — it never rolls the entry back to an older revision. Reports an error if the password is not in the trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the trashed password. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the description's statement that it modifies state (restores from trash) without being destructive. The description adds valuable detail about not rolling back to older revisions and reporting an error when the item is not in the trash, which goes beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences, directly stating the action, its scope, and error behavior. No redundant words or tangential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with one input and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the exact effect (removes from trash only), what it doesn't do (revision rollback), and the error case. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without further 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?
The only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Id of the trashed password.' The description repeats this without adding new meaning (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?
Clearly states it restores a trashed password and explicitly ties it to undoing delete_password. The description also distinguishes it from a revision rollback, which prevents confusion with other operations.
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?
Provides direct guidance on what the tool does and does not do (only removes from trash, never rolls back to older revision). It also mentions the error condition when the password is not in the trash, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with restore_folder, though the sibling list makes the distinction inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.