Restore Media

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the operation is asynchronous, returns a background_job_status object instead of a Media object, needs confirm=true, needs specific token permissions, and may share access, notify people or incur provider charges. These are real behavioral traits an agent must know before invoking.

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 core behavior, async return type, and prerequisite are front-loaded in the first few sentences. The permission/token block is verbose boilerplate but standard for this API surface, so it costs some conciseness without obscuring the essentials.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a nested payload, the description covers what it does, the async return shape (background_job_status), the prerequisite feature, and the confirm requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 100-media batch constraint on hashed_ids and reiterates the confirm=true requirement, both of which add meaning beyond the schema fields themselves.

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+resource (restores archived medias) and clarifies scope with the 100-item batch limit. However it never names the closely related siblings archive_media or restore_deleted_media, so the archived-vs-deleted distinction must be inferred.

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 context: requires Archiving feature access, requires confirm=true, and specifies batch size. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. restore_deleted_media) or state when this should not be used, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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