Restore assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful 'from the trash' context but says nothing about reversibility of the restore, permission requirements, or batching limits.

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?

Brief and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the raw endpoint/tag appended as metadata. The opening line repeats the title verbatim, which is a small amount of waste.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. Missing only minor behavioral notes such as whether restoring non-trashed ids errors.

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 100% for the single 'ids' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Restore specific assets from the trash') and the scope word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the whole-trash sibling immich_restore_trash. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

'From the trash' and 'specific assets' imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative for restoring an entire trash (immich_restore_trash) versus selected assets. Usage is left to inference.

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