Restore From Trash (EVS) — mutating

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

Annotations already indicate mutation, but the description adds meaningful context: it is a single batch call, it has been confirmed live against a real device, restored items reappear in `browse_folder`/`list_files`, and it only reverses a prior trash-move. It does not discuss potential conflict behavior at the original location, but this is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 dense but not bloated, with the mutating flag and core action front-loaded. The caveats about known paths and live validation justify their length because they prevent incorrect calls. Minor redundancy exists between the endpoint name and the action description, but overall it is 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 rich input schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description covers the critical behavioral facts needed to call the tool safely: mutating nature, batch handling, prerequisite knowledge of paths, and observed effects. It does not spell out the return value shape, but the schema's per-path result note partially covers that, and no output schema exists.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented in detail. The description adds the batch-call behavior and the prerequisite that `paths` must be pre-known, but it does not need to restate parameter formats. This is the baseline case where the schema carries the semantic load.

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 precise action (restore trashed files/folders to original location), names the underlying endpoint, and clarifies batch scope across all `paths`. It clearly differentiates from the sibling `delete_file` tool by focusing only on undoing a prior trash-move.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it — after a trash-move with `delete_file` and `permanent: false` — and warns that there is no confirmed way to enumerate trash contents, so callers must already know `paths`. This gives actionable selection and exclusion criteria.

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