Restore trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scope fact that ALL trash items are affected, but says nothing about side effects (e.g. where restored items land) or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the key scope word 'all' appearing immediately. Minor waste: the first line 'Restore trash' restates the title before the more informative sentence, and the API route/tag line is boilerplate.

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 zero-parameter action with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It could be stronger by contrasting with immich_restore_assets, but nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Restore all items in the trash' tells the agent this is a bulk restore of everything in trash, not a targeted restore. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling immich_restore_assets, which is the nearest ambiguity an agent faces.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from 'all items' that this is the bulk variant versus immich_restore_assets, but the description never says so.

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