pvsyst_restore_archived_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is non-destructive to the archive (snapshot preserved), that it creates a new file rather than mutating in place, that existing files are never overwritten, and that a confirm flag gates execution. Missing is anything about permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the archive name is invalid.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the destructive-safety constraint. The second sentence ("Verify new snapshot metadata; return model diagnostics separately from recovery") is jargon-heavy and vague — it reads as internal guidance rather than an instruction an agent can act on, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 restore/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile well, but three of four parameters are entirely undocumented and the return value is only gestured at ("return model diagnostics separately" — with no output schema, the agent has no way to interpret the response shape).

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for only one parameter (confirm must be true), leaving filename, archive_name, and component_type completely undocumented in both schema and description — an agent cannot tell what format archive_name takes or what values component_type accepts.

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?

"Restore an archived component as a NEW file, preserving the archived snapshot" gives a specific verb + resource plus the key differentiator from a plain restore. It is distinguishable from pvsyst_restore_component, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The 'as a NEW file / preserving the archived snapshot' clause implies when to choose this over pvsyst_restore_component or pvsyst_restore_project_archive, and 'requires confirm=true' gives a precondition. However, no alternative tool is named and no exclusion is stated, so the routing is left to inference.

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