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. It discloses single-item scope ('exactly one') and non-overwriting behavior, which are useful constraints. However, it omits permissions, failure modes, and the role of the required expected_revision concurrency token, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. Every phrase contributes necessary scope and behavioral information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, two required parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states the action but leaves parameter meaning and safety behavior to inference, so an agent cannot invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description does not mention 'id' or 'expected_revision' at all, so their semantics (e.g., that expected_revision is likely an optimistic-concurrency token) remain undocumented. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('trashed entry'), plus scope ('exactly one') and destination ('original path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'trash' (the reverse action) and 'list_trash' (read-only listing).

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 clear context: use it to restore a trashed entry, with a non-overwrite constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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