Restores a note by ID to a record in a location; set force restore to override conflicts.
Restore Note Endpoint: POST /notes/{id}/restore (Version header: v3; source: v3/objects-v3.json) OAuth scopes: notes.write
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note Id | |
| body | Yes | Request body (schema carried verbatim from the official OpenAPI spec). | |
| locationId | Yes | Location Id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context – the OAuth scope notes.write and the v3 version header – but says nothing about side effects, conflict behavior, or what state the note ends up in.
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: verb+resource first, then endpoint and scope. No filler, though the endpoint line reads as spec-paste rather than agent guidance.
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?
This is a mutating tool with a nested request body, no output schema, and non-idempotent semantics, yet the description omits what the call returns, what conflicts forceRestore resolves, and what errors to expect – leaving the agent to infer core behavior.
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%, including nested body fields (model, recordId, forceRestore), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level insight, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not more than a baseline.
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 verb+resource ('Restore Note') and the endpoint path identify the operation, but the description never explains what 'restore' actually means here (undelete a soft-deleted note? re-attach a note to a record?). It is distinguishable from ghl_object_delete_note and ghl_object_update_note by name only, not by explanation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use restore versus update_note, create_note, or update_note_relations, nor any precondition such as the note needing to be previously deleted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.