restore_note

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

The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two restoration paths, but annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description does not contradict or significantly extend 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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but could benefit from structured breakdown for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the core use cases adequately. It is reasonably complete for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'id' parameter. Baseline score 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 restores notes, specifying two distinct scenarios: unarchiving (back to QuickNote in Inbox) and restoring from trash. It effectively distinguishes this tool from related siblings like archive_note and delete_note.

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 this tool (to undo an archive or trash operation), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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