bulk_restore_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Restores' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, or what the return format looks like. It's minimally adequate but lacks crucial details for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Restores multiple previously deleted assets'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema only shows 'ids' is a required array of integers. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'ids' represent (e.g., asset IDs), format constraints, or valid ranges. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is insufficient.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Restores') and resource ('previously deleted assets'), and specifies the scope ('multiple'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'restore_story' or 'restore_component_version' that might handle different asset types or single restores.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., assets must be deleted first), constraints (e.g., rate limits, permissions), or how it differs from single-restore tools like 'restore_story' in the sibling list.

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