Restore Document From Trash

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description explains the non-destructive, idempotent nature by describing restoration as the inverse of deletion. It adds prerequisites (open project, valid ID) and optional folder behavior, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. First sentence states action and optionality. Second provides prerequisite step. Third gives inverse relationship and core requirement. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers both parameters, prerequisites, and inverse relationship. It lacks details about error conditions (e.g., if document not in trash) but is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 50% (only targetFolderId described). The description explains targetFolderId as 'Optionally into a specific target folder (otherwise it returns to a default location)' and implies documentId is the trashed document's ID. It instructs to find it via list_trash, adding practical guidance not in schema.

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 verb 'Restore' and the resource 'a trashed document back into the binder'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'delete_document' by calling itself the inverse. It specifies optional behavior for target folder, making the purpose precise.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'Use list_trash to find the document id first', providing a clear prerequisite. It also states 'Requires an open project and a valid document id.' This gives good context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives beyond the inverse relationship.

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