restore_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the source state ('from the trash') but says nothing about required permissions, whether the restore is reversible, what happens if the task is not in the trash, or where the task is restored to. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse for a mutation operation with no annotations, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only two documented parameters, the description is missing key context an agent needs: the effect of the restore, required permissions, error conditions, and whether any value is returned. It covers only the bare operation.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about taskId or projectId beyond what the schema provides, which deserves the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('restores') and resource ('a task from the trash'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_task, complete_task, or update_task. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the trash scoping is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'from the trash' implies the task must already be trashed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to sibling tools like list_trash for finding candidates. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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