restore_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one meaningful behavioral trait — scene instances are retained across the reimport — but says nothing about permissions, whether the prior state is overwritten or versioned, or side effects on the existing asset.

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 key action leads and the retained-instances detail follows. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is too thin. An agent knows roughly what happens but not how to choose the revision, what permissions are needed, or what the operation does to the current asset state.

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 compensate for both parameters and does not. It never explains what asset_id refers to or when/how the optional 'revision' should be supplied versus left null, which is the parameter most likely to cause an incorrect call.

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 'Reimport' plus 'a previous successful source' conveys that an existing asset is being brought back, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'source' is ambiguous (source file? source revision? source asset?), and the description never distinguishes this from sibling tools like import_asset or resume_workflow that also deal with previously produced artifacts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'previous successful source' weakly implies it applies only to assets with a prior successful build, but the agent is left to infer that restoration is appropriate versus import_asset or resume_workflow.

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