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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds important operational detail: settings/content/address are kept, running players are disconnected and the server comes back online, a reset backup is taken first, earlier backups are kept, and the archived world of a long-asleep server is discarded. It also states that the server is returned.

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 with purpose and the restoreBackup alternative, then covers side effects, UI route, and return value. It is information-dense with little waste, though the Danger-tab note is slightly peripheral.

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 reset operation, the description covers side effects, backup handling, player disconnection, return value, and the main alternative. Annotations and the schema's serverId documentation fill the remaining gaps, making it complete enough for selection and invocation.

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?

The description never explains the sole nested path/serverId parameter. The schema's serverId field does mention the id from listServers, but the description does not compensate for the low schema description coverage or explain the path wrapper.

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: replaces the world with a fresh one while keeping settings, content, and address. It also explicitly names restoreBackup for an earlier world, so the agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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 a direct alternative and when-not condition: 'for an earlier world use restoreBackup instead.' The intended use case is clear, but it does not compare against other nearby siblings such as deleteServer, createServer, or restartServer.

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