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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining exactly what is destroyed (current data is replaced), that a safety copy is taken and retained for a week, and that the service will be down for a few minutes. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core effect before the safety-copy and downtime details. No wasted text, though the phrasing 'Put a backup back' is slightly informal compared with the rest of the description.

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?

Covers the critical questions for a destructive, downtime-inducing operation: what happens to current data, whether it is recoverable, how long it takes, and that human confirmation is advised. With annotations and a fully described schema already present, this is close to complete.

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 both id and backupId are already documented with their sources (list_services, list_backups). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: replacing a service's current data with a backup's data. It is clearly distinct from siblings like back_up_service or list_backups, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 one clear usage instruction: confirm with the person first before restoring. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, relying on the schema's references to list_services and list_backups for prerequisite context.

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