restore_deleted_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool restores an asset and tells the caller to pass the deleted object as-is. It does not disclose side effects, whether the asset becomes immediately visible, permission requirements, error behavior, or reversibility.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and parameter handling in a compact, efficient way.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits the source of the deleted object and any preconditions (e.g., the asset must currently be in deleted assets), making it only minimally sufficient for reliable use.

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?

The input schema provides no description and marks the 'deleted' parameter as an opaque object with additionalProperties true. The description adds some meaning by saying to pass the deleted object exactly as-is, which hints that the agent should reuse an existing deleted-asset object rather than construct one, but it does not specify required fields or the object's source.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Restaure un asset supprime' (restores a deleted asset). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like restore_note because it says 'asset', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 instruction 'passer l'objet deleted tel quel' implies the caller should reuse a deleted asset object, likely from list_deleted_assets, but the description never names that source or states when to use this tool instead of purge_deleted_asset or restore_note. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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