Restore clip

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the load and does it well: it discloses the positional side effect (the clip goes to the end of the project's clips) and the return shape { changed, status, needsRerender } with the meaning of needsRerender. It does not discuss permissions or whether restoring a replaced clip affects the replacing clip, leaving a small gap.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the capability and the affected set come first, then the return-value semantics and the required follow-up call. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and interpreting needsRerender, and it explains the placement side effect. For a one-parameter restore tool with only an idempotency annotation, nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents the type and its provenance. The description repeats the same hint ('from get_project → replacedClips') without adding format or syntax detail, so this is the baseline 3 rather than added value.

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 (bring back) and resource (a deleted clip or one a re-analyze replaced), and names the exact source of such clips (get_project lists them as replacedClips). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_clip, rerender_clip, and get_clip.

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 a clear trigger (restore a deleted or re-analyze-replaced clip) and explicitly routes the follow-up case: 'needsRerender means it never finished, so call rerender_clip.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative such as delete_clip is named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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