Restore intro/outro

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true; the description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that — the no-op outcome for non-removed items and that default status is not restored. It also discloses the return shape { ok }. It does not say what happens with an unknown or invalid assetId, which limits it to a 4.

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?

Three short clauses: the action, the no-op caveat, the non-default caveat, plus the return shape. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries information an agent could act on.

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, idempotent restore with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the state precondition, side effects, and the response shape, so an agent can call it confidently. The only omission is failure behavior for an invalid or already-deleted assetId.

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% and the assetId property description already says "Library asset id (from list_bumpers → removed)". The description paraphrases the same sourcing hint without adding format, validation, or error semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Bring one of your removed library items back" states a specific verb and resource, and naming list_bumpers anchors it to the bumper library rather than projects or clips. It never uses the word "bumper" explicitly, so the tie to the title (intro/outro) relies on the sibling reference.

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?

It tells the agent the precondition (item must be in the removed state, discoverable via list_bumpers) and what happens outside it ("restoring an item that is not removed changes nothing"). "It does not become a default again" implicitly routes the agent to set_default_bumper for that goal, but the alternative is never named outright.

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