Restore documents from trash

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the 'safe' and 'bring back' framing, which clarifies it is an undo operation. However, it does not go into further behavioral detail such as preconditions, error handling, or what happens to documents that aren't in 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, no filler, and the main action is stated first. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a single array parameter, the description plus annotations cover the core action and safety profile. It does not explain return values or invalid-ID behavior, but given the low complexity and that no output schema is declared, this is a minor gap.

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 schema has no description for the 'documents' parameter and the description itself never explains that the array contains document IDs to restore. Schema coverage is 0%, so the tool description must compensate, and it doesn't. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1.

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 uses a specific verb ('bring back') and resource ('deleted documents'), and explicitly positions the tool as the 'safe counterpart to delete_document,' which distinguishes it from the destructive sibling. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

By calling it the counterpart to delete_document, the description implicitly tells the agent to use it when an earlier deletion needs to be undone. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus empty_trash or other alternatives, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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