Restore library asset

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the call is a silent no-op on non-deleted items, and the restored asset does not regain default status. It also documents the return shape ({ ok }) despite no output schema. Not covered: permissions/auth requirements or whether the restore window is limited.

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?

Two compact sentences, action and source of the id front-loaded, with the edge case and return value in a trailing clause. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description covers invocation, the id source, the no-op case, and the response shape. Missing only peripheral context such as whether a purged asset can ever be restored, which matters given purge_asset exists nearby.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a source the schema omits: the schema says only 'from delete_asset', while the description also points to list_deleted as a way to obtain the assetId.

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 (restore) on a specific resource (deleted library item/asset), and the resource name distinguishes it from restore_project and restore_clip in the sibling list. An agent can identify the correct tool 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?

Explicitly says the id comes from delete_asset or list_deleted, which tells the agent both the precondition and the prerequisite call sequence. It also covers the no-op case (restoring a non-deleted item changes nothing), though it never names explicit alternatives such as restore_project/restore_clip for other resource types.

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