Restore project

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 no-op case for non-deleted projects, the state transition where a processing project returns as failed, and the return shape { changed, status } despite no output schema. It does not mention permission/auth requirements, which is the only real 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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: core purpose first, then discovery, then the no-op caveat, then the processing caveat, then the return shape. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 with an idempotency annotation and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: precondition, no-op behavior, state edge case, and the return shape. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says the id comes from 'list_projects with deleted: true' — the description repeats that same hint rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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) and resource (deleted project), and explicitly scopes what is recovered: 'with its clips and files'. It also names sibling tools (list_projects for discovery, retry_project for the processing case), so an agent can distinguish it from delete_project/restore_clip without opening another 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 states how to find the target ('find it with list_projects deleted: true'), what happens when the precondition fails ('restoring a project that is not deleted changes nothing'), and which alternative to use for the processing case ('retry_project resumes it'). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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