restore_nodes

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

Goes well beyond the single destructiveHint annotation by disclosing rename-on-conflict behavior, all-or-nothing semantics, required permission scope, and the retry-safety contract of idempotency_key. The only gap is that it doesn't say whether restored items retain sharing/link state or how conflicts are surfaced.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with purpose and the source of IDs. Slightly over-packed—conflict, atomicity, permission, and idempotency are compressed into one paragraph—but every clause carries information.

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?

All the risk-relevant behavior of a mutation tool is covered: conflict handling, atomicity, permission, and retry semantics. The 'Returns the restored nodes' line is mildly redundant given the output schema, but it costs nothing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description still adds real meaning by tying node_ids to list_trash output and by framing idempotency_key as a retry-safety mechanism rather than a generic key.

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 and resource ('Restore one or more items from the trash to their original folders') plus the source of the identifiers ('using IDs from list_trash'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like trash_nodes, list_trash, and batch_nodes.

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 names list_trash as the prerequisite source of IDs and names batch_nodes as the alternative when per-item results are needed, with the condition ('All-or-nothing') that selects it. Also states the required permission files:delete.

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