yuque_restore_recycle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (cookie+ctoken) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about success/failure semantics, whether a restore is reversible, or behavior when the item no longer exists.

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: action first, then auth prerequisite, then endpoint and a doc pointer. Every element is brief, though the endpoint path and reference pointer are marginally redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (action, auth, endpoint) but omits error conditions and response expectations, leaving a modest 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and only one parameter (recycle_id) exists, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (item from recycle bin), which cleanly separates it from the sibling yuque_destroy_recycle. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool itself (restore a deleted item), and the cookie+ctoken prerequisite gives some context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or explicit routing against yuque_list_recycles / yuque_destroy_recycle.

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