Restore Deleted Media

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds substantial extra context: the default restore-to-original-folder behavior, the folder_id override, the restore-window limit, asynchronous execution with a background job in the response, and side effects (sharing access, notifying people, provider charges). This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Operation semantics are front-loaded and efficient, but the permissions boilerplate occupies a large block that is mostly duplicated across the toolset rather than earning its place here. Still readable and well organized.

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 nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: async nature, job-status response, restore-window constraint, and auth requirements. It could say a bit more about what the job-status response enables (e.g. pairing with get_job_status), which keeps it from a 5.

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, payload, and payload_file. The description restates the folder_id default behavior rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 clarifies scope (soft-deleted only, batch of up to 1000). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling restore_media, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: media must still be inside the restore window, and confirm=true is required for the mutation, plus the exact permission scopes needed. However it never names the sibling alternative (restore_media) or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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