Restore Media

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, yet the description adds substantial extra context: asynchronous processing, the return payload being a background_job_status object rather than a Media object, and the warning that the action may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. The side-effect disclosure in particular is information annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope, then layers return behavior, prerequisites, and permission detail in a logical order. The permission block is somewhat boilerplate-heavy for the tool's core purpose, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned background_job_status object and noting it replaces the usual Media response. Combined with batching, asynchrony, permission, and side-effect notes, an agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the 100-item cap on hashed_ids and the confirm=true requirement for the mutation. The dual body mechanism (payload vs payload_file vs flags) is only described in the schema, so the description does not fully exhaust the semantics.

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 archived medias to your account') and scopes it with a batch size ('up to 100 medias per request'). The word 'archived' implicitly distinguishes it from the nearby restore_deleted_media and archive_media siblings, but it never names them, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 concrete preconditions: the account must have the Archiving feature, a token with specific permissions is required, delegated tokens are accepted, and confirm=true is mandatory. What it lacks is explicit when-to-use guidance versus restore_deleted_media, which is the nearest and most confusable sibling.

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