Restore a deleted photo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds two pieces of context not in the annotations: that the deletion was 'soft' (implying recoverability rather than permanent loss) and that the call is 'Free', a meaningful cost signal given the presence of get_balance and get_usage siblings. It omits failure behavior, such as what happens if the photo is no longer restorable.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the cost note is appended where it does not interrupt the main statement. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter restore tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description supplies purpose, the originating sibling, and cost. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note about restore eligibility or time limits, which an agent might need when a restore fails.

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 100% and both parameters (photo_id, collection_id) are documented in the schema, including the collection id format constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('a soft photo deletion'), and names the sibling operation that created the state to be undone ('made with delete_photo'). An agent can distinguish this from restore_collection and recreate_collection without inspecting any 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?

It gives clear when-to-use context by tying the tool to a prior delete_photo call, which is exactly the precondition an agent needs. It stops short of explicit exclusions or edge conditions (e.g. deletion window expiry, what to do if the photo was hard-deleted), 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.