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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context by specifying the mutation is non-permanent and reversible via restore_media, which softens how an agent should read the destructive hint. It stops short of stating scope effects such as whether quota or folder relationships change.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the operation and its reversibility are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation with a full annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what changes, that it is recoverable, and how to reverse it. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented mediaIds constraints.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. "Selected library items" hints that mediaIds accepts a batch, but nothing conveys the UUID format, the 1–200 item bounds, or what happens on invalid IDs.

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 ("Moves selected library items to recoverable Trash") and the adjective "recoverable" implicitly separates it from delete_media_permanently. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 second sentence names restore_media as the undo path, which is a real alternative and tells the agent this is the reversible option. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance for the more important contrast with delete_media_permanently, but the word "recoverable" carries that context.

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