restore_message

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool commits directly without preview and relies on the local move log. It also explains the source of the message_id parameter, contributing to transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral details, and parameter documentation. It is slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Changes the mailbox'), but overall efficient.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works, and where to obtain the input. No gaps are present.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. For the only parameter (message_id), it states it should be an id from `list_moves` or the `new_message_id` from `apply_move`, adding critical context beyond the schema's title.

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: 'Move a message back to the folder it was moved out of.' It specifies the verb (restore) and resource (message), and the scope is clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_moves or apply_move.

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 explains that it works only for moves made by this server ('Uses the local move log'), and emphasizes that the destination is determined by the log, not a choice. It implicitly advises against using it for restoring moves from other sources, providing clear usage context.

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