restore_import_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates a new revision rather than overwriting, and it never changes video bytes. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, concurrency behavior (expectedRevision), or what happens to the current metadata revision.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and following with the critical safety constraint. Every phrase 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 four-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations, concurrency semantics, and the effect on existing revisions, leaving the agent under-informed despite the useful 'never changes video bytes' note.

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 burden of explaining all four required parameters. It only vaguely references a 'journaled revision' and 'your own completed upload' without mapping jobId, revision, or expectedRevision to their purposes or formats. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 ('Restore'), resource ('journaled metadata/artwork revision'), and scope ('your own completed upload as a new revision'), and adds a key constraint ('Never changes video bytes'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like update_import_metadata or set_import_artwork, but the action is clear enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_import_metadata, set_import_artwork, or refresh_import_metadata. The implied context is restoring a previous revision, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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