pvsyst_restore_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the operation is destructive-but-reversible (pre-restore state is backed up), that a safety gate (confirm=true) exists, and that a hash check guards against restoring the wrong snapshot. It omits what happens on hash mismatch, what permissions are needed, and what the call returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the category tag, the action, and the two safety conditions; nothing is wasted or padded.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the safety story is covered but the identification story is not: an agent still cannot confidently populate backup_name or know the failure mode on hash mismatch. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must explain all five parameters, but it only touches expected_sha256 ('verifying its current hash') and confirm ('requires confirm=true'). backup_name is genuinely ambiguous -- is it the snapshot to restore from or the name of the new safety backup? -- and project/variant go unmentioned entirely.

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 names a specific verb (restore) and resource (a variant snapshot) and adds the mechanism (hash verification), so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pvsyst_restore_project_archive or pvsyst_restore_component via the variant scope and the [Projects & Variants] prefix. It stops just short of naming an alternative outright.

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 states two real preconditions -- the current hash must be verified and confirm=true is required -- which tells an agent how to invoke it safely. It never says when to choose this over restoring a project archive or how to react if the hash does not match, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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