Restore from trash

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description is consistent with these and adds context annotations cannot express — that restoration puts entries back in their old location with links intact and is a single undoable step. It omits failure behavior for invalid or already-restored ids, keeping it out of the top band.

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: action, identifier source, effect, and reversibility are all packed in without repetition of the name or title.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case guidance on invalid/already-restored ids and any response confirmation detail, which is minor for a single-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain that ids identify Trash entries and where to obtain them (list_trash). It does not clarify batching semantics, duplicate ids, or ordering within the array, so it is not fully compensating.

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 (restore Trash entries) plus the resulting scope: returned to their old place with their links. It also names the sibling that supplies the ids (list_trash), so an agent can distinguish it from delete_nodes, move_nodes, or undo_last_change without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly conditions use on ids 'as listed by list_trash' and signals reversibility via 'One undoable step', which implicitly points at undo_last_change as the revert path. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g., archived items, already-restored ids), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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