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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only one real behavioral fact ('without generating new assets', i.e. no new asset/credit consumption); it says nothing about partial failures, items not in Trash, or batch semantics for up to 200 IDs.

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 verb, scope and the 'no new assets' caveat are all packed into it economically.

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 one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, but incomplete for a batch operation: return shape, partial-success behavior and the 200-item cap are nowhere in the description or schema prose.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains that mediaIds expects up to 200 UUID-style media identifiers sourced from list_media, nor what happens if any ID is invalid or not trashed.

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 ('Restores ... trashed library items') with a scope qualifier ('selected'), which clearly separates it from trash_media and delete_media_permanently. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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 only implied: 'trashed library items' tells an agent this applies to items already in Trash, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to delete_media_permanently for irreversible removal.

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