Restore trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/reversibility profile is partly carried by structured data. The 'Side effect' sentence largely restates what 'restore' means, and leaves open real questions such as whether album/tag membership survives the restore or what happens if the trash is empty. Useful but thin context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the use case, then the sibling routing, in four short sentences with no hedging. The 'Returns: JSON with success confirmation' line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs a single short sentence.

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 zero-parameter bulk operation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and alternative adequately. It stops short of the one detail an agent would still wonder about after an accidental deletion: whether restored assets come back with their albums, tags, and metadata intact.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The phrase 'ALL trashed assets' usefully confirms that the operation is unscoped, reinforcing the empty schema.

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 plus the scope qualifier 'ALL trashed assets back to the library', which immediately separates it from the per-asset variant. An agent can distinguish it from restore_assets and empty_trash without opening any 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 an explicit use case ('undo an accidental bulk deletion') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('For restoring specific assets only, use restore_assets instead'). Both the when and the when-not are present.

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