modx_undelete_resource

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 does disclose the key behavioral trait that this reverses a soft delete rather than creating a new resource, but it omits permission requirements, whether child resources are restored, and what happens if the id is not in the trash.

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 sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the parameter note follows. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter meaning. It leaves gaps around permissions and restore side effects that an agent might need before invoking a write 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only types `id` as a number, so the description's '`id` = resource id' genuinely adds meaning by identifying what the number refers to. It stops short of format details but compensates adequately for a single 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 and resource: 'Restore a soft-deleted resource from the trash (un-deletes it).' The trash/soft-delete framing distinguishes it from hard-delete or empty-recycle-bin siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 precondition that the resource must already be soft-deleted, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., versus modx_empty_recycle_bin or modx_duplicate_resource) and no stated exclusions.

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