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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses billing implications, that the source is untouched, the 7-day deleted-source allowance, copied users/passwords, Valkey snapshot semantics, retry safety, and the required scope vms.create. These are substantive behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a restore operation.

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 a single dense block, but it is front-loaded with the core action and every clause carries useful information. The parenthetical Valkey note and scope line add value rather than waste, though the sentence is long and could be slightly easier 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essential creation semantics and operational constraints well. It does not explain the return value or whether the restore is asynchronous, but the critical details for correct invocation are present.

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 high at 83%, but the description adds important meaning for the 'at' parameter by explaining that the restored state is as of a given minute and, for Valkey, uses the last snapshot before that minute. It also implies 'database' is the source and 'name' is the new database, though it does not elaborate on optional parameters like vpc or size_gb.

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: it creates a NEW database restored to a given minute of the source's restore window. It clearly distinguishes the operation from backup/fork siblings by emphasizing that the source is not touched and that the result is a new billed database.

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 usage context: restore from a point in the restore window, discoverable via list_database_backups, and notes that the source may have been deleted in the last 7 days. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as fork_database, but the operational conditions for choosing this tool are clear.

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