restore_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this only operates on soft-deleted notes and returns them to active desktop notes, but omits error behavior (note not found, note not deleted, idempotency) and permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core action stated before the Args block. It is efficient, though the Args block is slightly formal for a single self-evident parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the action plus its one parameter are covered. However, the description leaves preconditions, error cases, and permission needs unstated for a mutation, which leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document the sole parameter as the UUID of the note to restore. That adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Note Id' title, though it gives no format example.

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 (restore) and resource (a soft-deleted Sticky Note), and clarifies the end state back to active desktop notes, which separates it from update_note/delete_note. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 'soft-deleted' qualifier implies the required precondition, so usage is reasonably inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that the note must already be soft-deleted, and no pointer to a sibling for finding deleted notes.

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