bulk_restore_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool restores deleted assets, implying a mutation operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether restoration is reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens if some assets can't be restored. For a bulk mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like error handling, permissions, constraints, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and effectively in production scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'multiple deleted assets' which implies the 'asset_ids' parameter, but provides no details about format, constraints, or what constitutes valid asset IDs. It doesn't explain whether all assets must be from the same space/folder or if there are limits on how many can be restored at once.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and target ('multiple deleted assets'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'restore_story_version' by focusing on assets rather than stories, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bulk operations like 'bulk_delete_assets' or 'bulk_move_assets' beyond the restore action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., assets must be deleted first), constraints (e.g., maximum number of assets), or when to choose this over individual restore operations. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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