files_trash_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say what happens if the resource no longer exists, whether restore can overwrite existing items (despite an isOverwrite parameter), or what permissions are needed for a mutating operation.

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?

Two words are technically concise but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said beyond the tool name.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent without any information about side effects, error conditions, or the overwrite semantics implied by the second parameter.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both resourceId and isOverwrite. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which lands at the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 "휴지통 복원" (trash restore) is essentially a Korean restatement of the tool name files_trash_restore. It conveys the general action but adds no distinguishing scope or detail, and does nothing to separate it from siblings like files_trash_clean or dms_trash_list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many trash-related siblings. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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