Restore Deleted Media

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the restore window limit, asynchronous execution with a background job status in the response, the required API token permission (and delegated-token behavior), and the confirm=true mutation requirement. Annotations cover the safety profile, but these operational traits are genuinely new information.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in one dense sentence, then defaults, constraints, and async behavior. The trailing permissions/confirm block is boilerplate but relevant to correct invocation; overall it is reasonably sized and every sentence carries information.

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 6-parameter mutation with nested payload and no output schema, the description covers permissions, confirmation, async behavior, and return-shape ('background job status'). It is close to complete, with the only real gap being how it relates to the sibling restore_media.

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%, so the schema already documents folder_id, media_hashed_ids, confirm, payload, and payload_file. The description restates folder_id semantics (default original folder vs. explicit target) but adds no format, ordering, or error-handling detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Restores one or more soft-deleted media') and narrows scope with the restore-window constraint. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling restore_media, which an agent could easily confuse with restore_deleted_media.

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?

The description implies usage through the constraint 'Only media still inside the restore window can be recovered' and the folder_id default behavior, but it never says when to choose this over restore_media or explicitly recommends list_deleted_media to obtain the hashed ids. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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