restore_file_backup

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It fails to mention that restoring overwrites existing files, whether it requires specific backup formats, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a potentially destructive 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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the potentially destructive nature of restoration and the presence of many backup-related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain backup selection, overwrite behavior, or any safety considerations, leaving critical context absent.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions: 'backup_file' (path to backup) and 'directory' (restore destination, default '/'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 'Restore a file from a backup' uses a clear verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like restore_database_backup by specifying file-level restoration. However, it could be more specific about which backup type or source it applies to.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, selection among backup types, or any exclusions. Sibling tools suggest a backup context, but the description provides no usage direction.

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