epost_restore_letter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'restore' but doesn't specify side effects, what happens if the letter_id is invalid or already restored, or any state changes. The description is insufficient for safe usage.

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 is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too minimal to provide sufficient value. It is not verbose, but could be structured to include more context without losing conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should adequately cover behavior. However, it lacks information on return values, error cases, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for an AI agent to invoke reliably.

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?

The sole parameter 'letter_id' is not explained beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have added meaning, such as what format the ID is or how to obtain it. No extra semantics provided.

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 action (restore) and resource (deleted letter) and specifies the target location (inbox). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like epost_delete_letter and epost_list_deleted.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like the letter must be deleted first, or that it's the inverse of epost_delete_letter. The description lacks usage context.

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