restore_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 of disclosing behavior. It only states the primary effect but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the asset is not trashed, or whether permissions are required). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and context. It clearly indicates the condition (trashed) and the relationship to delete_asset, but omits potential caveats like permission requirements or failure modes. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a generic description ('ID of the resource'). The description adds the context that this id refers to a trashed asset, which is somewhat helpful, but does not go beyond what the schema already implies. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Restore'), the target resource ('a trashed asset'), and explicitly ties it to the inverse operation ('undo delete_asset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_asset or get_asset, which operate on non-trashed assets.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when an asset is in the trash and needs to be brought back. The reference to delete_asset further signals the intended use case, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools for similar scenarios.

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