Restore a discarded media

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

Annotations already declare the write/mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description adds the specific no-op semantics: restoring a non-discarded media changes nothing. That is useful behavioral context beyond idempotentHint, though it says nothing about return payload, permissions, or side effects on the project's media list.

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, zero filler, with the triggering condition front-loaded before the no-op caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 three-parameter, fully-schema-documented mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers when to call it and what happens in the degenerate case. Remaining gaps (success response shape, permission requirements) are small.

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 the schema itself explains the project id, media id and the requestId dedupe contract in detail. The description only loosely gestures at 'a media' and 'their projects' without adding syntax, formats, or ID sourcing guidance, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('wants back a media they discarded... removes the discard') and scopes it to 'one of their projects'. It implicitly contrasts with the discard operation, but never names growwer_discard_media, so the sibling routing is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use this when the user wants back a media they discarded' is an explicit triggering condition, and 'Restoring one that is not discarded changes nothing' tells the agent the call is harmless when the precondition is unmet. It gives no guidance about prerequisites (project ownership, permissions) or alternatives beyond the implied discard/discard inverse.

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