restore_folder

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which clarify behavioral traits. The description adds minimal extra context by stating 'restore', which implies making the folder active again. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on permissions, child items) or required permissions. With annotations covering the key traits, the description provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 consists of a single, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structure. It is front-loaded and 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, high schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It provides all necessary information for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'folder_id', which is well-documented in the schema as 'The ID of the folder to restore'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Restore' and specifies the resource as 'a previously archived folder'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'archive_folder' (which performs the opposite action) and 'restore_task_list' (which operates on a different resource).

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 does not explicitly provide context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'restore' implies it should be used on archived folders, there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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