restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does disclose one key behavioral trait: 'Does NOT affect git history' and references the 'shadow restore point system.' However, it does not clearly state that this is a mutating operation that will overwrite current files, nor does it mention reversibility or side effects beyond git. This adds some context but is insufficient for a write operation.

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?

Three short sentences, each earn their place. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains the system behavior, and the third gives a clear prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear schema and prerequisite, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage prerequisite, and a key non-effect (git). It does not mention what the return value looks like or potential destructive consequences, but given the simple tool shape, these are minor omissions.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for point_id ('The restore point ID (format: rp-timestamp-hash). Get from restore_points.'). The tool description repeats this guidance ('Call restore_points first'), adding no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Restore files'), the specific scope ('to their state before a specific AI change'), and the mechanism ('shadow restore point system'). It distinguishes from siblings like restore_points (which lists points) and checkpoint (which creates points).

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 provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Call restore_points first to find the point ID.' This clearly instructs when to use this tool relative to its sibling. It also notes a caveat ('Does NOT affect git history') that helps decide between restore and git-based alternatives. Absence of explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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