deploy_backup

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond that: it spells out the concrete consequence ('current server data can be replaced') and the required environment gates (WISP_ALLOW_BACKUPS, WISP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE), which no annotation conveys. It omits behavior on an invalid/expired backup ID or whether the server is verified after restore, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler. The destructive consequence is front-loaded right after the trigger condition, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs before acting.

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 destructive, non-idempotent restore with only two params and no output schema, the definition covers action, precondition, consequence, and env prerequisites. The remaining gap is post-call expectation (does a restore return a task/status, and how should the agent confirm success), which is minor given there is no output schema.

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%: backup_id already documents 'Backup object ID returned by list_backups' and server_id documents the WISP_SERVER_ID default. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a server from an existing backup ID.' That verb set is distinct from every backup sibling (list_backups, create_backup, delete_backup, lock_backup, backup_download), so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

'Use only for an explicit restore request because current server data can be replaced' gives a clear trigger condition plus an explicit when-not rationale. It doesn't name an alternative tool (e.g. that the ID must come from list_backups, or create_backup for the inverse flow), which keeps it short of a full 5.

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