Restore clip

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: the restored clip is appended to the end of the project's clips, and the return shape { changed, status, needsRerender } is explained with actionable meaning for needsRerender. It does not mention permissions, limits on how long after deletion a restore works, or behavior for purged clips.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and eligibility, then the return value and follow-up. No filler; every clause carries information the 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the returned fields and their interpretation, plus the required follow-up call — everything needed to invoke and act on the result for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with the schema already stating the id comes from list_deleted or get_project → replacedClips. The description repeats that provenance without adding new syntax or constraints, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (restore a deleted/replaced clip) and scopes which clips qualify — deleted ones or those swapped out by re-analysis — which separates it from delete_clip, purge_clip and restore_project in the sibling list.

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 names where to get the id (list_deleted or get_project → replacedClips) and gives the conditional next step (call rerender_clip when needsRerender). Lacks an explicit exclusion, e.g. that purged clips cannot be restored via this tool (purge_clip is a sibling), so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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