Restore assets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description mainly needs to add context, which it does via the side-effect statement and the precondition that asset_ids must 'currently [be] in trash'. It does not cover what happens if an ID is not in trash or whether a partial failure aborts the batch, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded, and every sentence is short and purposeful. The trailing 'Returns: JSON with count of restored assets' duplicates the existing output schema and is the one non-earning line.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, precondition, alternative, and side effect. The remaining omission is error/partial-success behavior on assets not in trash, which matters for a restore operation but is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: asset_ids is identified as a list of UUIDs (format) that must currently be in trash (validity constraint). It does not say whether unknown or duplicate IDs error or are silently ignored, leaving one meaningful gap.

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 with scope: 'Restore specific assets from trash back to the active library.' The sibling restore_trash is named as the opposite-scope operation, so an agent can distinguish them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('selectively recover accidentally deleted photos') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('For restoring everything at once, use restore_trash instead'). No inference required.

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