pvsyst_restore_project_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that this is a destructive/mutating operation that backs up current bytes first, that confirm=true is mandatory, and that legacy sets will need manual recovery. Missing is what happens on a hash mismatch (abort vs partial restore) and whether the backups are retained afterward.

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?

Two tight sentences after a bracketed category tag; the destructive precondition and the confirm requirement are front-loaded before the legacy-set caveat. No filler, though density borders on cryptic for the object parameters.

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 nested, 4-parameter, mutation-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions and safety but omits parameter structure and failure/return behavior. An agent knows the guardrails but not how to construct backups or expected_files correctly.

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% and two of the four parameters (backups, expected_files) are nested string-map objects whose contents are entirely undocumented. The description mentions confirm=true and gestures at 'hashes' and 'transaction', but never explains the shape or meaning of backups and expected_files, leaving the agent to guess.

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: it restores every PRJ/VC file from a single source/name project transaction, with the matching and manifest preconditions named inline. It is distinguishable from restore_project_archive and restore_variant, though it does not call out those siblings by name.

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 description gives clear preconditions (matching current hashes, a complete transaction manifest, backup hashes) and the confirm=true requirement, which implies when the call is valid. However, it never states when to prefer this over pvsyst_restore_project_archive or pvsyst_restore_variant, nor what to do when the hash check fails.

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