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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that items return to their original location, not a default folder. It says nothing about what happens when the original parent is gone, when the deletion-retention window has expired, or whether name conflicts arise.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the recovery source and destination both land immediately. 'Where they lived' is informal but unambiguous in context.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter mutation backed by annotations, but there is no output schema and the description omits the failure modes an agent would want before calling it on a batch of up to 200 IDs, such as expired-trash items or partial-batch results.

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?

There is one parameter (assetIds) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone gives no format guidance. The plural 'files' hints at batch operation, but the description never names assetIds, its ID format, or the 1-200 item bounds enforced by the 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?

Names a specific verb ('Bring files back') and a specific resource state ('Recently deleted'), plus the destination ('to where they lived'). This distinguishes it from restore_version, which implies version history rather than deletion recovery. It stops short of naming restore_version explicitly as the contrasting sibling.

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 parenthetical '(list_media from: deleted)' tells the agent both the precondition (the asset must already be in Recently deleted) and the discovery path to find eligible IDs. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of restore_version as an alternative for a different case.

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