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

Beyond annotations already marking the tool destructive, the description explains that everything after the target moment is undone, that a safety copy of the current state is taken first, and that downtime lasts a few minutes. This adds concrete operational context an agent needs before invoking a destructive restore.

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 description is front-loaded, dense but clear, and every clause adds operational value: scope, data loss, safety copy, downtime, and confirmation. There is no filler.

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 database restore with no output schema, the description covers the key safety and impact behavior, time constraints, downtime, and human confirmation. It could more explicitly distinguish this operation from restore_backup, but otherwise it is complete enough to call 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 already 100%, including the ISO 8601 timezone requirement for 'at' and the service id source for 'id'. The description still adds useful meaning by constraining 'at' to list_backups' PITR span and the last week and by emphasizing timezone confirmation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: putting a Postgres database back to a given second, with point-in-time scope and a one-week limit. It references list_backups for the PITR span but does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling restore_backup, so sibling differentiation is present but incomplete.

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?

It gives clear context for use: the target moment must fall within list_backups' PITR span and the last week, and the user should confirm the moment and timezone first. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of restore_backup or when not to use it.

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