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

All annotations are false, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data, potential downtime), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The bulk support hint is about execution, not behavioral consequences.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no fluff, and the most important info (the action) is front-loaded. The bulk support note is a separate sentence, keeping structure clean.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool like restore. It lacks context about what 'restore' means (from backup? to a specific state?), whether it overrides current settings, or what happens to existing project data. With no output schema and no annotation support, this leaves the agent guessing about important operational details.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it explicitly says 'project_ids' is for 'batched execution', which clarifies the optional array parameter. However, it does not explain that 'project_id' is the primary required parameter for a single restore, nor does it describe any format or constraints. Given 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient but not entirely absent.

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 clearly states the action ('Restores') and the resource ('a Supabase project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project, delete_project, or pause_project by specifying a restore operation.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention typical scenarios (e.g., restoring from a backup) or any prerequisites, nor does it explicitly exclude cases where restore shouldn't be used. The bulk support note is a feature hint, not usage guidance.

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