untrash_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'WRITES.' prefix usefully flags that this is a mutating operation, which is genuine added value. But it does not disclose permission requirements, whether the restore overwrites an existing item at the same path, idempotency, or behavior on a non-trashed ID.

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?

Two short fragments with the mutation signal front-loaded ('WRITES.'). Every word earns its place; nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but omits the details an agent most needs before invoking: permission requirements, what happens to conflicting items, and the semantics of fileId.

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% and the description says nothing about fileId. It is unclear whether the single parameter accepts a file ID, a folder ID, or both, or what format is expected. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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+resource: restore a file or folder from the trash. This clearly contrasts with the sibling trash_file (the inverse operation). However, it does not name or differentiate against any sibling explicitly, and 'file or folder' leaves the fileId resource type ambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'from the trash', suggesting the target must currently be trashed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the trash_file sibling as a complementary operation. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing guidance.

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