Undo: restore a backup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write/irreversibility profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is atomic and the current version is backed up first, so the action is itself reversible. This rollback guarantee is real behavioral value, though it is stated twice.

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 key constraint is front-loaded, but the sentence 'The current version is backed up first' is repeated verbatim, making the description longer than needed. Structure is fine; redundancy costs it.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the essential prerequisites and side effect, though it could have used the freed space for something other than restatement.

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 100%, so both parameters (path, backup) are already documented in the schema, including the backup-name source. The description reinforces that backup comes from iwork_list_backups but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('atomically restore a backup'), and pins down the argument source ('a name from iwork_list_backups'). An agent can identify the operation and its input origin without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use to undo a change') and names the prerequisite tool that supplies backup names. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the routing context is clear.

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