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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific consequences beyond those hints: newer data may be lost and downtime occurs, telling the agent what is at risk and that disruption is expected. It still omits approval requirements or recovery details.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical warning. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 destructive restore with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and major consequences, consistent with the destructive annotations. However, it omits parameter context, including the required project_ref and backup_id, and does not explain approval_id or the beon_* fields, leaving the agent to infer usage from bare schema patterns.

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 0% across 9 parameters. The description only implies a 'selected database backup' and provides no explanation of project_ref, backup_id, approval_id, or the beon_* parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter descriptions.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('database backup') with the scope 'selected'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling restore tools such as supabase_restore_pitr or supabase_restore_project, so it is clear but lacks sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no excluded cases. The warning about data loss is impact information, not usage guidance.

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